The Court of Appeal possesses inherent jurisdiction to review its decisions only in exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice, but cannot rehear cases that have been conclusively settled.

[1] This is an application by Ahmadi bin Yahya (the applicant) by way of a Notice of Motion dated 6 January 2012 in encl 25a for this court to review and to set aside its own decision given on 13 December 2011 in Criminal Appeal No P-06B-13-2007.

[2] The relevant antecedent facts giving rise to this application are these. The applicant was originally charged in the Sessions court at Georgetown for an offence of corruptly accepting gratification under s 11(a) of the Anti Corruption Act 1997 punishable under s 16 of the same Act. On 1 March 2007, after a full trial, the Sessions court convicted the applicant on the said offence and had accordingly sentenced him to 14 days imprisonment and to a fine of RM10,000 in default one year imprisonment. He was also ordered by the Sessions court to pay a penalty of RM1,000. He then appealed to High court against the decision. On 1 November 2007, the High court allowed his appeal. Consequently, the High court quashed the conviction and sentence. The public prosecutor being dissatisfied with the decision of the High court appealed to the court of Appeal. This court heard the appeal on 13 December 2011 wherein at its conclusion this court unanimously allowed it. This court then set aside the order of the High court and restored the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions court. Subsequently, as I have indicated earlier, by the Notice of Motion herein the applicant applies to this court to review the said decision.

[3] Against the backdrop of the above, two important points should now be highlighted here. First, a panel of three judges of the court of Appeal heard and disposed of the applicant's appeal on 13 December 2011 in accordance with s 38(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA), which provides that every proceeding in the court of Appeal shall be heard and disposed of by three judges or such greater uneven number of judges as the president of court of Appeal may in any particular case determine. As a matter of fact, it is a usual and standard practice for the president to assign a panel of three judges to each appeal. In effect, the panel of the three judges heard and made the decision on the appeal for the entire court of Appeal.

[4] Secondly, this matter had originated from a Sessions court. In a criminal matter which originated from the Sessions court, the court of Appeal stands as the apex court. No further appeal shall lie to the Federal court (see: Sia Cheng Soon & Anor v. Tengku Ismail Tengku Ibrahim, 2008 MarsdenLR 4449 ). In Munawar Ahmad Anees v. PP, [2010] 1 CLJ 802), Raus Sharif FCJ (as His Lordship then was) said:

"In the present case, it is not in dispute that the applicant's case originated from the Sessions court. The matter came before the High court in its appellate capacity and not under its original jurisdiction. Section 87 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 provides that the Federal court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal from the decision of the court of Appeal in its appellate jurisdiction in respect of any matter decided in the High court in its original jurisdiction. In a criminal matter which originated from the Sessions court, as in this case, the court of Appeal stands as the apex court. No further appeal shall lie to the Federal court. The appeal should stop at the court of Appeal."

[5] In this reg