LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION – Inherent Jurisdiction – Instances Where Court May Set Aside Its Judgment
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
This court has the inherent power and jurisdiction to set aside its decision in appropriate cases: when judgment has been obtained by fraud practised on the court by one of the parties; this court will set aside its decision which is a nullity; this court can set aside its judgment where it is obvious that the court was misled into giving the judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"This court has the inherent power and jurisdiction to set aside its decision in appropriate cases. This it can do when the judgment has been obtained by fraud practised on the court by one of the parties. ... This court will set aside its decision which is a nullity. ... This court can set aside its judgment where it is obvious that the court was misled into giving the judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Despite general finality (Principles 542-545), Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside own judgments in three exceptional circumstances: (1) Fraud on court: Judgment obtained through fraud practiced on court by party—deliberate deception, false evidence, concealment of material facts. Must be fraud on court itself, not mere fraud between parties. (2) Nullity: Decision is void/nullity—made without jurisdiction, fundamentally defective, void ab initio. Null decisions are non-decisions legally. (3) Consent judgment given by mistake: Court was misled into believing parties consented when they didn’t—judgment based on mistaken belief of consent. These are narrow exceptions to finality because: fraud vitiates everything, nullities aren’t valid judgments, and mistaken consent judgments lack proper foundation. “Inherent power” means: not derived from rules but from court’s nature, necessary to prevent injustice, and protective of judicial integrity. This serves: preventing fraud from succeeding, refusing to enforce nullities, and correcting judgments based on mistaken consent. However, threshold is very high: fraud must be proved, nullity must be clear, and mistake must be obvious. These exceptions don’t permit: general review, correcting errors of law/fact, or second-guessing decisions. They address: fundamental defects in judgment procurement/validity, not substantive errors in decision-making. This preserves finality while preventing fraud and nullity enforcement.