Abdul Hamid Mohamad CJ:

[1] I have had the privilege of reading the draft judgment of the learned President of the Court of Appeal. I agree with his conclusion. However, I wish to emphasize a few points.

[2] The first thing that must be borne in mind is that this court is not hearing an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal. That, this court had done and the judgment of this court was delivered on 2 February 2007. What is before us now is an application for this court to review its own decision. The application is made under r. 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 ("RFC 1995)" and/or its inherent jurisdiction.

[3] Secondly, it must also be borne in mind that a court decides a case on the evidence adduced in court, not on public opinion, even though, it may be that the public opinion represents the truth of what had actually happened. To give a simple example, someone is dead and public opinion is that he has been murdered by the accused person. But, if the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt according to law, the murderer may be acquitted by the court. After all the court is a court of law, not of public opinion. The case of Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP and Another Appeal [2004] 3 CLJ 737 is a good example.

[4] In an application for a review by this court of its own decision, the court must be satisfied that it is a case that falls within the limited grounds and very exceptional circumstance in which a review may be made. Only if it does, that the court reviews its own earlier judgment. Under no circumstances should the court position itself as if it were hearing an appeal and decide the case as such. In other words, it is not for the court to consider whether this court had or had not made a correct decision on the facts. That is a matter of opinion. Even on the issue of law, it is not for this court to determine whether this court had earlier, in the same case, interpreted or applied the law correctly or not. That too is a matter of opinion. An occasion that I can think of where this court may review its own judgment in the same case on question of law is where the court had applied a statutory provision that has been repealed. I do not think that review power should be exercised even where the earlier panel had followed certain judgments and not the others or had overlooked the others. Not even where the earlier panel had disagreed with the court's earlier judgments. If a party is dissatisfied with a judgment of this court that does not follow the court's own earlier judgments, the matter may be taken up in another appeal in a similar case. That is what is usually called "revisiting". Certainly, it should not be taken up in the same case by way of a review. That had been the practice of this court all these years and it should remain so. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation. A review may lead to another review and a further review. This court has so many times warned against such attempts. See:

1. Lye Thai Sang & Anor v. Faber Merlin (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1985] 2 CLJ 423; [1985] CLJ (Rep) 196.

2. Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd. v. Kobchai Sosothikul [2005] 1 CLJ 565.

3. Allied Capital Sdn. Bhd. v. Mohd. Latiff Bin Shah Mohd. & Another Application [2004] 4 CLJ 350, in particular the dissenting judgment of Abdul Hamid Mohamad, FCJ.

4. Tai Chai Yu v. The Chief Registrar of the Federal Court [1998] 2 CLJ 358.

5. Chan Yock Cher v. Chan Teong Peng [2005] 4 CLJ 29.

6. Chu Tak Fai v. Public Prosecutor [2006] 4 CLJ 931.

[5] Coming back to r. 137 of the RFC 1995, I have dealt at length on the effect of the rule in Abdul Ghaffar Md. Amin v. Ibrahim Yusoff & Anor [2008] 5 CLJ 1 and in Sia Cheng Soon & Anor v. Tengku Ismail Tengku Ibrahim [2008] 5 CLJ 201. In the former case I concluded:

In other words, rule 137 cannot be construed as to confer any new jurisdiction to the existing jurisdiction of the Federal Court as spelt out under the Federal Constitution, the Courts of Judicature Act and other statut