The court held that the Land Disputes Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the ownership of land that had already been the subject of a final court judgment and subdivision, and that the Tribunal's award was therefore null and void. The magistrate was correct in refusing to adopt the Tribunal's award as a judgment of the court, as he had a duty to ensure that only lawful and competent awards were adopted. There was no error apparent on the face of the record in the lower court's decision, nor was there any new evidence or sufficient reason to justify review of the summary rejection of the appeal. The consent order of 1976, which subdivided the land among the parties, remained valid and had never been set aside. The application for review was thus dismissed as unmeritorious.