The Federal Court emphasized that inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to review decisions on their merits; it is confined to preventing injustice under limited grounds.

Zulkefli FCJ

[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 137Court 1995 ('r 137') and consequentially the applicant's application has been dismissed with costs. I would like to state my views in dismissing the applicant's application with particular reference to the scope and purpose of r 137

[2]I am of the view r 137Court the statutory jurisdiction or the new jurisdiction to hear any application to review its own decision. However, under r 137Court 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 137Sia Cheng Soon & Anor v Tengku Ismail bin Tengku Ibrahim 2008 MarsdenLR 4449 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')s 16Courts 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 the CJA is for regulating the practice and procedure to be [2010] 5 MLJ 145 at 152 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 137court 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 137Court and for this reason the said r 137court to review its own decision. The learned solicitor general if I understood him correctly in his submission seemed to be concerned of the absence of the source of jurisdiction and power that can be attributed to r 137

[5]With respect I could not agree with the learned solicitor general that r137 cannot be invoked at all to review its own decision. Notwithstanding that r 137r 137Court itself. On this point I agree with the views expressed by H