Well, this is a complex situation. But your review may be useful if:

1- It covers the recent literature published after the old one, in which case it may be a useful update.

2- It discusses the same topic from a different perspective or focusing on different points

To avoid overlap, you can:

1- Check your article for Plagiarism using ithenticate or CrossCheck software.

2- Change the layout of your review if similar to the old one.

3- Make sure to cite the old article and highlight the differences between your article and theirs and what are the new points you discuss in your review.

Finally, it depends on your judgement and i agree that a paper should only be published if it adds something new, even if minor. That is how science is built, one line every time in a huge library.

What is the use of publishing more or less the same thing twice? Take up a work after ascertain that it was not taken by someone else before.

I suggest that you need to study that paper and see if it still has some gaps. You can then improve your work and address the gaps you have found. otherwise, there is really no point in publishing the same stuff

Well, this is a complex situation. But your review may be useful if:

1- It covers the recent literature published after the old one, in which case it may be a useful update.

2- It discusses the same topic from a different perspective or focusing on different points

To avoid overlap, you can:

1- Check your article for Plagiarism using ithenticate or CrossCheck software.

2- Change the layout of your review if similar to the old one.

3- Make sure to cite the old article and highlight the differences between your article and theirs and what are the new points you discuss in your review.

Finally, it depends on your judgement and i agree that a paper should only be published if it adds something new, even if minor. That is how science is built, one line every time in a huge library.

To discuss the topic should know the reasons for rejection, and processed