In principle, for academic articles, you should only write things that are new and have not been published before. From this perspective, you should not rehash what others have already done if they've already done a good job doing it.
This makes your work easier. That means that you shouldn't spend the time writing up what others have already done, but rather spend your time on discussing your own new unique contributions beyond what others have already done.
That said, so that your article can stand on its own, it is necessary to do some kind of repetition so that your readers can sufficiently read and understand your article in its own right without having to read other articles for background reading just to follow your article.
Based on these principles, here is my recommendation for the scenario you described:
Since points 1, 2 and 4 have already been done nearly perfectly, do not redo it. However, do summarize these points in your own words in as much detail as necessary so that your readers do not need to read the other literature review to understand what you are talking about. In your summary, not only should you certainly cite the other literature review, but freely quote it as ncessary to get the message across. Then, you should explicitly ask readers to read that other article for further details. (However, I repeat, make sure that all absolutely necessary detail is included in your own summary in your own article.)
Develop point 3 in detail, since that is clearly different from the treatment in the other literature review. Make sure you highlight this difference so that readers can appreciate that although you borrow from the other article for points 1, 2 and 4, you are making a contribution above and beyond what has already been done.
With this approach, you not only benefit from the other work that the other article has done, but you use it as a platform to highlight your own valuable contributions.