First, let's be clear about one thing: plagiarism only occurs when you copy someone's work (perhaps with only minor modifications) without clearly citing the original source. If, however, you clearly cite the original source and you make it clear that you are copying or modifying the original citation, then there is no question of plagiarism. So, I really don't consider the situation that you are describing to be an issue of plagiarism, otherwise, you wouldn't even be posting this question--you're not trying to hide anything.
That said, I have heard of the idea of so-called "paraphrase plagiarism" where some people consider it to be plagiarism if you modify an original source but somehow "not enough" so that they consider it plagiarism. I personally think that's silly, as long as you made it quite clear that you are citing another source. At worst, that could be called sloppy paraphrase or sloppy citation, but I think the serious and strong word "plagiarism" should be reserved for deliberate attempts to deceive or mislead. In any case, even if it is silly, you don't want people to accuse you of plagiarism when you have no intention to do such a thing. Anyway, this is a controversial point, so, I'll drop back and now get back to directly addressing your explicit question.
In general, when discussing or describing a primary article in a literature review, you should directly cite the original primary articles, not other literature reviews that mentioned the primary articles (even if these other literature reviews are how you found out about the primary articles). Ideally, you should read (either entirely or partially) the primary articles, and so you should be able to write an original summary in your own words of the primary article. As long as you don't look at the literature review's summary while you are writing your own original summary, there should be no concern about plagiarism because you are not plagiarizing: you are writing your own original summary. Of course your summary will resemble that of the literature review, since you are both describing the same original source, but that similarity is due to two independent descriptions of the same thing; it is not because you plagiarized anything. (Again, this assumes that you did NOT look at the other literature review's summary while writing your own; if you do look at it, then you might unconsciously or semi-consciously copy its wording and structure--so, don't look at it.)
That said, even though you should cite the primary article directly, if you learnt about the primary article through the literature review, it is good to cite the literature review as well as a general source, both so that your readers recognize that you are aware of it and as a courtesy to acknowledge how it helped you to identify relevant literature.