The court possesses limited inherent jurisdiction to review its decisions, primarily to prevent clear infringements of statutory law, not mere disputes over interpretations.

[1] In encl 2(a)m the Applicants applied to this Court to exercise its inherent powers and to give the following orders as prayed:

'(i) Bahawa Pemohon-Pemohon/Perayu/Plaintif Ketiga dan Keempat diberi kebenaran untuk memfailkan permohonan ini;

(ii) Bahawa Keputusan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini yang menolak rayuan Pemohon-Pemohon diketepikan;

(iii) Bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini bahawa Pemohon Pertama/Perayu Ketiga tidak mempunyai hak atau 'locus'sebagai isteri undang-undang lazim/isteri berkahwin istiadat untuk membawa tindakan kehilangan tanggungan diketepikan;

(iv) Bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini yang memutuskan bahawa definasi 'isteri' di bawah Undang -Undang Sivil 1956 harus dibaca untuk bermaksud seorang isteri yang berkahwin secara sah di bawah Undang-Undang Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 diketepikan;

(v) Bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini bahawa seorang wanita yang telah menjalani perkahwinan ikut istiadat perkahwinan Cina dilarang/dihalang untuk membawa tindakan di bawah Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 diketepikan;

(vi) Bahawa Rayuan Pemohon Kedua/Perayu Keempat yang ditolak secara summary didengar semula oleh panel yang lain di Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini;

(vii) Selanjutnya atau mana-mana relief yang Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini fikir suai manfaat dan teratur; dan

(viii) Mana-mana perintah susulan yang di atas relief atau mana-mana relief daripadanya dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini."

[2] In the Applicants' application before us, the Applicants applied for this Court to review and to order the rehearing of their appeal before another panel pursuant to the inherent powers of this Court to prevent injustice ("Applicants' application"). The Applicants' application was for this Court to review the decision of Rayuan Sivil No B-4-249-09/2014 ("said Appeal") where the panel had dismissed the Applicants' appeal on 26 October 2015 ("said Panel").

[3] The Respondent had opposed the Applicants' application on two grounds:-

3.1 that this Court is not seized with power to review its decision ("jurisdictional issue"); alternatively

3.2 that there are no merits in the application as the said Panel was presented with detailed written submissions and heard extensive arguments from the Counsels representing the Applicants, Respondents and the Amicus Curiae.

[4] As the jurisdictional issue was fundamental to our powers to hear the Applicants' application, we proceeded to hear the parties on this issue first.

Court's Jurisdiction

[5] It was the Applicants' submission that this Court has the jurisdiction to review its earlier decision based on this Court's decision in Ramanathan v. PP , [1996] 2 MLJ 538, where Gopal Sri Ram (JCA) (as he was then) delivering the judgment of this Court, at p 59, held as follows:

"[2] We will take the question of jurisdiction first. It is now settled that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to review its own decision in a given case. See, Taylor v. Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90, where it was held as follows:

The Court of Appeal had a residual jurisdiction to reopen an appeal which it had already determined in order to avoid real injustice in exceptional circumstances. The Court had implicit powers to do that which was necessary to achieve the dual objectives of an appellate Court, namely to correct wrong decisions so as to ensure justice between the litigants involved, and to ensure public confidence in the administration of justice, not only by remedying wrong decisions, but also by clarifying and developing the law and setting precedents. A Court had to have such po