The District Court's decision was a nullity because it decided the issue of res judicata suo moto without affording the parties a right to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice and the constitutional right to be heard.
The conviction was vitiated because both the trial and first appellate courts failed to consider the appellant's defence evidence, violating principles of natural justice and rendering the conviction unsafe.
The Court of Appeal vacated its prior finding that Mechmar had good cause to seek revision instead of appeal, holding the parties had not been heard on that issue.
The Court held that while Rule 66(7) bars a second review of a review decision, the second limb of the previous decision was an exercise of revisional jurisdiction, not review, and is therefore subject to review. The applicant was denied the right to be heard when the Court exercised revisional powers suo motu without notice or submissions from the parties. This procedural irregularity warranted vacating the second limb of the previous decision and ordering a fresh hearing.
The appellant was denied a fair hearing as he was not given an opportunity to present his submissions and arguments on his grounds of appeal; this breach of natural justice renders the District Court's decision void.
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, quashing a theft conviction after finding the first appellate court erred on locus standi, fair hearing, and witness credibility.