LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Finality of Judgment – Need for Finality in Litigation
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Were we to accept the submission that we can exercise jurisdiction to entertain motions to look into complaints about the law or fact in the judgment being attacked, there would be no finality about any judgment of this court and every affected litigant could bring further appeals as it were, ad infinitum; that is a situation that must not be permitted.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"For, were we to accept the submission of counsel for the applicants that we can exercise jurisdiction to entertain these motions to look into complaints about the law or the fact in the judgment being attacked, there would be no finality about any judgment of this court and every affected litigant could bring further appeals as it were, ad infinitum. That is a situation that must not be permitted."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Supreme Court cannot entertain applications to review its own judgments on law or fact because: permitting this would eliminate finality, enable endless appeals (ad infinitum—to infinity), and create perpetual litigation. This serves: finality principle, judicial efficiency, and parties’ need for closure. “No finality” means: judgments never truly final, parties could continually challenge, and litigation would never end. “Ad infinitum” means: endlessly repeating, without limit, perpetually. This situation “must not be permitted” because: litigation must end, parties need certainty, judicial resources are finite, and system requires finality. Supreme Court as final court must: provide ultimate resolution, end litigation, give binding final decisions. If Supreme Court could review itself: every disappointed party would seek review, litigation would continue indefinitely, and “final” court wouldn’t truly be final. This principle establishes: Supreme Court decisions are absolutely final, no further review possible (except limited exceptions—slip rule for clerical errors), and litigation ends at Supreme Court. This serves: legal certainty, efficient judicial system, and protecting both successful parties (enjoying victory) and system integrity (enabling closure). Without finality: legal system couldn’t function, parties would face perpetual uncertainty, and “final” decisions would be meaningless.