The High Court set aside land execution proceedings for lack of identified land size and demarcation, holding the underlying proceedings were a nullity.
The applicant, as administrator of the deceased's estate, has locus standi to seek revision since he has an interest in the matter and no right of appeal. The successor judge lacked jurisdiction to review and reverse the predecessor judge's order joining the legal representative, as review must be initiated by a party within the statutory period and not by the court on its own motion. Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code does not permit correction of a dismissal order as it is not a clerical or arithmetical error.
The Court of Appeal struck out an application for extension of time to seek review, holding that review and revision are distinct remedies and the motion was incompetent before a single Justice.
The High Court is functus officio regarding matters already determined by the Court of Appeal and cannot entertain applications to revisit or set aside such decisions. Further, without proper certification of payment as required by law, the court cannot recognize alleged payments. The application fails for want of jurisdiction and procedural compliance.
The High Court dismissed an application to review its earlier ruling, holding there was no apparent error on the record and that the underlying proceedings were a consent order.