Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This is a case of a road accident. The matter was tried by the sessions court which found for the plaintiff. It held the defendant to be solely to blame for the collision. The High Court reversed. It dismissed the plaintiff's claim. It did so on the ground that the sessions court had erred in its evaluation of the evidence. The plaintiff appealed to us. We allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the sessions court. In cases of this sort we do not, as a general rule, produce written reasons for our decision. First, because these kinds of cases merely turn on an assessment of facts: they do not involve any novel or important principle of law. Second, because in matters that originate in a subordinate court, this court is the final arbiter and no further appeal lies to the Federal Court. That is provided for in s. 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 which, inter alia, states that an appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from "any judgment or order of the Court of Appeal in respect of any civil cause or matter decided by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction." Notice the words "exercise of its original jurisdiction". In