The Principle Of Functus Officio

Functus officio, a branch of the doctrine of res
judicata prevents the re-opening of a matter before the same court, tribunal or other statutory actor which  rendered the final decision in the absence of statutory authority. There are many exceptions. For instance, where a statute  authorizes variations of the original  decision, the decision maker may revisit his or her previous decisions. Common examples include competency hearings and family law proceedings.
In the Canadian case of  Chandler V. Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J; wrote in relation to the principle of functus officio: “The general  rule is that a final decision of a court cannot be  reopened…”. The rule applied only after the formal  judgement had been drawn up, issued  and entered, and was subject to two  exceptions: where  there had been a  slip in drawing it up, and where  there was an error in expressing the manifest intention of the court.
It is noteworthy  that there is an important difference between “res judicata” and functus officio” “Res judicata” refers to the  end of a case, while “functus officio refers to the expiration of an office. “Functus officio” is derived from “fungere” to perform, end, expire. It is cognate to the  ordinary English word “defunct” Res judicata’ means the thing has been decided” It is derived from the  Principle “Interest reipublicaeut sit finis litium”, which means it is for the good of the commonwealth  that there be a terminus to litigation. The general rule of functus officio is that the court has no jurisdiction to reopen or amend  a final decision except in two cases (1) where there has been a slip in drawing up the judgement or (2) where there has been error in expressing the manifest intention of the court. But  some school of thought are of the opinion that this rule need not always be rigidly applied to tribunals in the administrative  law context when  the policy reasons for it is not present. However  the rational for the doctrine is fundamental: that for the proper administration  of justice, there must be finality to a proceeding to  ensure procedural fairness and integrity of the judicial system.
As a general rule, once a tribunal has reached  a final decision in respect to the  matter that is before  it in accordance with its  enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances. To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with  respect to formal judgements of a court whose decision  was subject to a full appeal.
This concern for finality is evident in the  definition of  functus officio: A court or tribunal  that is no longer seized of a matter because it has discharged the office. E.g .a  judge who has  pronounced a final judgement is functus officio. The principle ensures that subject to an appeal, parties are  secured in their reliance on the finality of superior court decisions.

Nkechi Bright Ewere