Final judgments cannot be reopened by repeated interlocutory filings; prolonged non-compliance justified compound interest and costs.

Repeated interlocutory applications cannot be used to reopen a final Supreme Court judgment or disturb settled liability, absent truly exceptional circumstances such as gross denial of natural justice. Attempts to relitigate concluded issues were treated as an abuse of process. Where remediation liability had already been quantified and remained unpaid for years, the Court applied restitution and unjust enrichment principles and held that prolonged non-compliance justified compound interest and realistic costs to neutralise any advantage from delay. The applicant-industry was therefore required to satisfy the remediation obligation with compound interest and costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the interlocutory applications could be used to reopen and disturb the final judgment and settled liability already affirmed by dismissal of review and curative petitions; (ii) whether the applicant-industry was liable to pay the quantified remediation amount with compound interest and costs for continued non-compliance.

Issue (i): whether the interlocutory applications could be used to reopen and disturb the final judgment and settled liability already affirmed by dismissal of review and curative petitions

Analysis: The litigation had already attained finality, and the attempt was to relitigate questions concluded long earlier. The governing principle is that final judgments of the apex court acquire great sanctity and cannot ordinarily be reopened, save in truly exceptional circumstances such as gross violation of natural justice or circumstances undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. Repeated interlocutory filings to postpone compliance amount to abuse of process and cannot be permitted to defeat the conclusiveness of the prior adjudication.

Conclusion: The attempt to reopen the concluded controversy was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the applicant-industry was liable to pay the quantified remediation amount with compound interest and costs for continued non-compliance

Analysis: The remediation liability had already been quantified and left unpaid for years while the applicant retained the benefit of non-compliance. The Court applied the principles of restitution and unjust enrichment, holding that a wrongdoer cannot retain gains obtained by delay or obstruction and that the victim of the delay must be made whole. To neutralise the advantage of prolonged non-payment and to secure complete justice, compound interest was warranted, together with realistic litigation costs.

Conclusion: The applicant-industry was held liable to pay the quantified remediation amount with compound interest and costs.

Final Conclusion: The interlocutory applications were found to be an abuse of process, the settled environmental liability was enforced, and the applicant-industry was directed to satisfy the remediation obligation with compound interest and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A final judgment of the apex court cannot be reopened by repeated interlocutory applications save in truly exceptional circumstances, and a party that has retained the benefit of prolonged non-compliance may be made to pay restitutionary compound interest and realistic costs to neutralise unjust enrichment.

---