LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION – Inherent Jurisdiction – Setting Aside Judgment on Ground of Nullity – Distinction from Review
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
True enough, this court has no jurisdiction to review its own judgment; but this application does not seek review of the judgment of the court but seeks to have the judgment set aside on the ground that it is a nullity; it is settled law that a court (and that includes this court) has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside its judgment or decision that is a nullity.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"True enough, this court has no jurisdiction to review its own judgment. ... But this application does not seek review of the judgment of the court but seeks to have the judgment set aside on the ground that it is a nullity. It is settled law that a court (and that includes this court) has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside its judgment or decision that is a nullity."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This clarifies Principle 549 by distinguishing review from nullity. Review: Reconsidering judgment’s correctness, re-examining facts or law, and substituting different decision. Supreme Court cannot review own judgments (Principles 543-545). Setting aside nullity: Different from review—nullity is void ab initio, never a valid judgment, and can be set aside. The distinction: Review challenges judgment’s correctness (was it right?), assumes valid judgment, and Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction. Nullity challenges judgment’s validity (was it valid?), asserts void judgment, and any court (including Supreme Court) has inherent jurisdiction to set aside. Nullities include: judgments without jurisdiction, judgments obtained by fraud on court, and fundamentally defective orders. “Inherent jurisdiction” means: power inherent in courts to set aside void acts, necessary for judicial integrity, and not dependent on statutory grant. This serves: preventing enforcement of void orders, maintaining judicial integrity, and distinguishing substantive review (prohibited) from nullity determination (permitted). The principle: Supreme Court cannot review valid judgments but can set aside void ones—reviewing correctness differs from determining validity. Courts must carefully distinguish: applications challenging judgment correctness (disguised reviews—prohibited) from genuine nullity challenges (validity questions—permitted). This narrow exception preserves finality while refusing to enforce nullities.