Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked for reconsideration absent an error apparent on the record.

The applicants sought review of an order dated 18 August 2026 permitting P.W.2 to tender evidence by video conference.

They argued that the plaintiffs’ evidence, including P.W.2’s evidence, had already been closed by earlier orders and that the applicants had been directed to begin their evidence.

In their submission, allowing P.W.2 to testify without expressly reopening the plaintiffs’ evidence effectively reopened it and caused prejudice.

The applicants contended that these circumstances had not been properly brought to the Court’s attention when it made the order under review.

Whether the order permitting P.W.2 to tender evidence by video conference disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record because the plaintiffs’ evidence had previously been closed.

Whether the applicants’ contention that relevant facts were not brought to the Court’s attention provided sufficient grounds to review or recall that order.

The application invoked Order XVI Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XLVII, Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court stated that review jurisdiction is limited: review is not a rehearing or an opportunity to reconsider the matter on grounds already considered or which could have been raised earlier; an applicant must establish an error apparent on the face of the record or otherwise satisfy the requirements for review.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the earlier orders concerning closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence and commencement of the applicants’ evidence, alongside the order permitting P.W.2 to testify by video conference.

It held that the applicants had not demonstrated an apparent error in the order under review; their grounds instead sought reconsideration of that order.

Nor did the asserted omission of relevant facts, by itself, establish a basis for review, absent a resulting apparent error or other satisfaction of the review standard.

It dismissed the review application as devoid of merit and made no order as to costs.