The court held that the judge having heard the
matter was entitled to hear the review. That
jurisdiction is a creature of statute and the
appellant didn’t adduce evidence to contradict
the jurisdiction. That the failure to note in the
register is a technicality remedied by the
constitution article 126(2)(e). that the holding
of the judge in the review was erroneous. That
the judge was not justified in sitting in appeal
of his own judgment. That in the matter of the
admission of fresh evidence, the judge was
functus officio in the cause. That the judge was
not justified in setting aside his decision in the
matter of review.