005056 101. The Court observes that the determination on whether a domestic court is competent to hear a matter depends on the legal system of the State concerned. In this regard, domestic courts have the power to interpret the laws and determine their jurisdiction. 102. Inthe instant case, the Court notes that Article 133 (1) of the Respondent State’s Constitution provides that “The Supreme Court may review any decision made or given by it on such grounds and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules of court”. On the other hand, Article 130 of the Constitution stipulates that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over matters regarding constitutional disputes. The Court further notes that the Ordinary Bench of the Supreme Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction because it was incompetent to examine the claims relating to the Applicant, as they did not raise a constitutional dispute. 103. The Court observes that, on the contrary, the Review Bench reversed this decision invoking lacked its review jurisdiction, jurisdiction with respect noting that the Ordinary to the Applicant's Bench claims by declaring resulted in a that it grave miscarriage of justice. The Review Bench stated that “As the matter stands now, there is a real danger that the High Court which is the appropriate forum that this court referred the matter to, may itself give a contrary and conflicting decision quite apart from what this court has given’. 104. Considering the margin of discretion domestic courts enjoy in interpreting their own jurisdiction, this Court holds that, on the face of it, there is nothing erroneous or arbitrary in the Supreme Court's Review Bench interpretation of its own jurisdiction. This is significant given that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the Respondent State. 105. Furthermore, violated any jurisdiction. the Applicant has also not demonstrated specific legal procedures or acted arbitrarily how the Supreme in assuming Court its review