This matter came before the Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant on November 15, 2010. Appellant is appealing a final order entered by the Trial Court on the 28th day of October, 2010 which dismissed his case. Appellant is alleging misconduct of the Chief Judge of the Trial Court; irregularity in the proceedings; that the verdict or decision is contrary to law and the evidence; and that substantial justice has not been done. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and dismisses this appeal based on res judicata 1.
ISSUE
Whether the Trial Court can sua sponte dismiss an action and reject any future filings when the Court is on Notice the action is barred by res judicata.
FACTS
Appellant’s application for enrollment filed shortly after his birth was denied on insufficient blood quantum being shown to meet the requirements established by the Colville Confederated Tribes (Tribes) for membership. Over thirty years later new evidence came to light. Appellant reapplied and he was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Law and Order Code § 8-1-80. Appellant is now a full member of the Tribes. Subsequently, Ap*190pellant filed an action based on “new evidence” that alleges he should have been enrolled when his parent first applied following his birth and thus was entitled to a sizable retroactive payment of per-capita and 181-D monies from the Tribes. He lost at both the Trial Court and Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, he re-filed citing the same new evidence, requesting attorney fees, and alleging that the courts misapplied the law. Again, he lost at both the trial and appellate courts. He filed his action one more time with the Trial Court alleging misconduct, and that he was suing the individuals personally and not as Tribal officials. The Court denied his case and notified him no subsequent filings, would be accepted on this issue. He appeals again.
DISCUSSION
A.INTRODUCTION
In court, “no less than in ordinary life, ‘explanations come to an end somewhere.’ ”2. Generally in courts “somewhere” follows a single explanation: the final judgement.3 The issue presented concerns the Trial Court’s power to dismiss the action sua sponte pursuant to the res judicata doctrine that a final judgment has already been entered, and the litigation is at end. This is one of the Court’s inherent powers.
B. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Whether a judge properly exercised an inherent power is reviewed for abuse of discretion.4 The Trial Court’s decision is overturned “only if its action was manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”5 It requires a review for due process at the very least.6
C. THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT
Colville Courts, like all courts, possess inherent powers.7 Other jurisdictions have described these powers as being one of two kinds, equitable and supervisory, *191and existing independent of any statutory authority.8 Regardless, the Colville Code codifies this power in Section 1-1-144.9 This statute has been described as a broad grant of “broad authority”10 providing guidance in the exercise of the “court’s discretionary authority to run an orderly court system.” 11 Its function is to allow the Court to develop a “process in the absence of a statutory process.”12 The court, however, disfavors continued reliance on this statute,13 and only uses it in the face of statutory silence.14
Colville case law provides further guidance for the Trial Court’s exercise of these powers. The judge is directed to maintain justice and fairness and make decisions for the “good of the whole community.” 15 The community should be con*192fident in the court’s ability to accurately interpret the Court’s “procedures in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and to prevent injustice.”16 When the issue implicates the Tribes’ “independence as a sovereign nation” the Court’s duty is to protect tribal rights.17 Moreover, the Trial Court is to be diligent in its respect for due process.18
In the present case there is no statute governing sua sponte dismissals of an action. Nevertheless, Section 1-1-144’s grant of “broad authority” enabling the court to run an effective court system, certainly covers the present issue.19 In particular, such a mode of proceeding “preserve[s] the integrity of the judicial process and to prevent injustice.”20 The judicial system’s integrity and ability to ensure just results is negated when a litigant can continually re-file a matter in the hopes of a different result, or in the hopes of wearing the other side down. These are the very reasons, as discussed below, for the existence of the res judicata doctrine.
D. A COURT MAINTAINS DISCRETION TO SUA SPONTE DISMISS AN ACTION WHEN THE COURT IS AWARE RES JUDICATA BARS RELITIGATION OF THE ACTION.
1. Res Judicata
Colville courts have long recognized res judicata.21 It requires: (1) a *193past final judgment on the merits between the same parties; and (2) a “present actions involving] (a) the same subject matter; (b) the same cause of action; (c) the same persons and parties; and (d) the same quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.22
The policy behind res judicata is the “prompt and efficient administration of the business that comes before” a court.23 Fundamentally, the doctrine rests on the principle “that one litigant cannot unduly consume the time of the court at the expense of other litigants, and that, once the court has finally decided an issue, a litigant cannot demand that it be decided again.”24 This reflects “the purpose for which civil courts have been established, the conclusive resolution of disputes within their jurisdictions.” 25 Preclusion then “protects [litigation] adversaries from the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.”26
The present facts indicate res ju-dicata bars the Appellant’s current action. The former and present actions involve the same subject matter (retro-active payment related to enrollment), the same cause of action (new evidence rated to enrollment), the same parties leading to the same quality of people for or against, and there has been a decision on the merits. Therefore the five criteria for application of the doctrine of res judicata have been met in this case.
Significantly, the present facts act to highlight the policies behind res judicata. In particular, the Appellant’s repeated attempts to litigate the same issue appears be a single person “unduly consuming] the time of the court at the expense of other litigants.”27 Reliance on the Court’s judgments is also weakened as the Appellant is advocating for inconsistent decisions.28
£ Sua Sponte Dismissal Because of Res Judicata
Dismissal is within the inherent power of a court.29 The Colville Court of Appeals has never considered the issue of the sua sponte dismissal specific to res judicata but has addressed sua sponte dismissal multiple time in other contexts.30 *194The leading ease, Campbell v. CCT, states the rule that the Trial Court maintains “judicial discretion to grant dismissals with prejudice before an adjudication of the merits in certain circumstances,”31 The Campbell case, supra, read Stensgar32 together with Swan33 as providing “the general rule is that dismissals with prejudice are generally reserved for cases in which ... there has been a hearing on the merits.”34 Moreover, when lacking guidance the Court should reasonably “all relevant public and private interest.” 35 Dismissal sua sponte for res judicata logically follows from this rule: res judicata is solely concerned with a previous judgement on the merits.
Looking outside this jurisdiction other courts have come to the same conclusion. The United States Supreme Court stated the rule as: “if a court is on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented, the court may dismiss the action sua sponte, even though the defense has not been raised.”36 This is “consistent with the policies underlying res judicata: ... the defendant’s interest in avoiding the burdens of twice defending a suit,” and, “the avoidance of unnecessary judicial waste.”37 A dismissal on these grounds is disfavored when “no judicial resources have been spent on the resolution of a question ... thereby eroding the system of party presentation so basic to our system of adjudication.”38
In the present case the Court was on notice that the same parties and claims had been decided on the merits in prior actions were being raised again. Looking to the relevant private and public interests the Trial Court was correct in dismissing the case and rejecting any additional filings on the matter. The Court’s actions protects the defendant’s interest in not continually defending the same suit. *195Moreover, not expending judicial resources in hearing actions already decided and precluding further litigation prevents the waste of additional resources.
CONCLUSION
Sua sponte dismissal of an action for the reason of res judicata is an inherent power of the court which aids the Court in controlling its docket. Such Court action provides for the good of the community by increasing reliance on judicial decisions by rejecting the invitation to create inconsistent judgments. Such ae-tions only aid in the prevention of injustice and promotion of fairness. The case law governing such decisions are in line with the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss and reject any subsequent filings. Res judica-ta is present and the Court was aware of the prior decisions. The Trial Court’s ae~ tion simply prevents the unneeded waste of judicial resources and allows the Court to be used by other litigants, who have not received a final judgment. We hold there has been no abuse of discretion by the Trial Court.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The Court of Appeals Clerk is directed to reject any future filings by Appellant which relate to his enrollment.
It is SO ORDERED.