The Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to review its own decisions; Rule 137 reaffirms inherent powers to prevent injustice but does not confer the ability to relitigate past judgments.

[1] I have read the judgment in draft of my learned sister, Heliliah bt Mohd Yusof, FCJ and I agree with the conclusion reached by her Ladyship that the applicant has failed to meet the requirements of r 137 of the Rules of the Federal 1995 ("rule 137") and consequentially the applicants application has been dismissed with costs. I would like to state my views in dismissing the applicants application with particular reference to the scope and purpose of r 137 as follows:

[2] I am of the view r 137 cannot be construed as conferring upon the Federal Court the statutory jurisdiction or the new jurisdiction to hear any application to review its own decision. However, under r 137 the Federal still has the limited "inherent power" or "inherent jurisdiction" in order to maintain its character as a Court of justice to hear any application or to make any order to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. There is an important difference between the nature of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and its statutory jurisdiction. The source of the statutory jurisdiction of the Court is the statute itself which will define the limits within which such jurisdiction is to be exercised, whereas the source of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is derived from its nature as a Court of law and that the limits of such jurisdiction are not easy to define. (See Sir Jack Jacob, QC "The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court" (1970) Current Legal Problems 23).

[3] On the proposition that r 137 does not confer new jurisdiction, Arifin Zakaria FCJ (as he then was) in the case of Sia Cheng Soon & Anor v. Tengku Ismail Tengku Ibrahim, [2008] 3 MLJ 753 , had correctly concluded at p 217 as follows:

I agree with the learned Chief Justice that this application ought to be dismissed for the reasons given by him. In this regard I am of the opinion that it is necessary for us to consider the purpose and scope of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 (RFC). This is found in s 16 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA). Briefly it provides that the purpose for which rules may be made by the Rules Committee appointed under s 17 of CJA is for regulating the practice and procedure to be followed by the Federal Court in all causes and matters whatsoever in or with respect to which the Federal Court has for the time being jurisdiction... But as a subsidiary legislation it cannot exceed the powers conferred by the statute pursuant to which it is made, therefore, it cannot purports to confer new jurisdiction where none existed before or enlarge the jurisdiction, or create or alter substantive rights...

Therefore, it will be ultra vires the powers of the Rules Committee to attempt to confer on the Federal Court the power to deal with a matter which is outside its jurisdiction. This rule must strictly be confined to procedural matter only. (emphasis added)

[4] It is to be noted that the term "inherent jurisdiction" and "inherent power" have been referred to interchangeably in a number of earlier decided cases under r 137. There is a difference between the words "jurisdiction" and "power" in law. Jurisdiction denotes the scope of authority over a subject matter the Court may deal with. The Court may then exercise its power in relation to and pursuant to that jurisdiction. The learned Solicitor General appearing for the respondent in this application had adopted the stand that r 137 does not confer new jurisdiction on the Federal Court and for this reason the said r 137 cannot be invoked at all by the Court to review its own d