CONSENT JUDGMENT

• Date: 24 January 2019

(1) "A "consent judgment" presuppose out of Court settlement reached by the parties and the terms of the said settlement or agreement are furnished to the Court and form the basis of the Court’s judgment in the suit. The terms of such settlement mutually agreed by the parties and embodied in the record of the Court constitute what is called a consent judgment. It binds the parties thereto as any other lawful judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction. Where, therefore, as in the instant case, it is clear that the purported consent judgment fails to represent the terms of the agreement reached by the parties, an action can be taken to set it aside. In other words, a consent judgment lacking in mutuality or riddled with fraud or misrepresentation is ineffectual and can be set aside by a fresh action taken out in this regard. See: Talabi v. Adeseye (1972) 8 9 S.C. 20 and Woluchem v. Wokoma (1974) 3 S.C. 153." - Per Achike, J.C.A. in Vulcan Gases Ltd. v. Okunlola Suit No. CA/K/185/90; (1993) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 274) 139 at 156.

(2) "In order to have a consent judgment, the parties must be ad idem as far as the agreement is concerned; their consent must be free and voluntary, and the terms of settlement must be filed in Court. When the Court makes an order based upon such terms of settlement, there emerges a consent judgment, from which the parties could appeal only by the leave of Court." - Per Uwais J.S.C. in Oshoboja v. Amuda Suit No. S.C. 273/1989; (1992) 23 N.S.C.C. (Pt. II) 527 at 536.

(3) "It is when the terms of settlement are filed in Court and made the judgment of the Court that it now crystalizes into a consent judgment. A consent judgment is the final judgment of the Court in the matter and is appealable only with leave of Court; RASC Ltd. v. Akibu (supra); Star Paper Mill Ltd. v. Adetunji (2009) L.P.E.L.R. - 3113 (S.C.); (2009) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1159) 647." - Per Otisi, J.C.A. in Aerobell (Nig.) Ltd. v. N.D.I.C. Suit No. CA/L/862/2015; (2017) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1558) 203 at 233.

(4) "The rule is that actions may be settled by consent during the trial. Usually, such settlement is a compromise and, in order to have a binding effect on the parties, it is imperative that it should have the blessing of the Court. Settlement between the parties may be described as a contract whereby new rights are created between them in substitution for, and in consideration of, the abandonment of the claim or claims pending before the Court. When the Court moves and takes action as agreed upon by the parties, it becomes a consent judgment. In such a situation, the Court may give judgment, or make an order of discontinuance or may order a stay, in so far as the circumstances of the case may permit." To give one or two illustrations: - (i) Where the settlement is that the parties shall do certain things which they have respectively agreed to do by the terms of settlement, there should be a decision making the agreed terms an order of the Court which shall be carried out. If either party fails to carry out the Court’s order then on an application by the aggrieved party, the Court will enforce it. (ii) The settlement may consist of an agreement by the defendant to pay a liquidated sum of money by specified instalments. In such a case, the practice is for the Court to give judgment for the total amount agreed to be paid coupled with an order for a stay of execution so long as the instalments are paid in accordance with the terms of agreed upon between the parties. The implication of this kind of settlement is that if there is a failure to comply with the terms of installmental payment, the party who suffers may proceed to levy execution. (iii) The settlement may simply be in the form of an order of the Court made by consent staying all further proceedings on the matter upon the terms agreed upon by the parties. The stay may be qualified or unqualified as the case may be." - Per Ibekwe, J.S.C. in Abel O. Woluchem v. Dr. Charles Inko Tariah Wokoma Suit No. S.C. 90/ 1973; (1974) 9 N.S.C.C. 181 at 189.

(5) "We wish to draw attention to the fact that it is the backing of the Court that gives the terms of settlement the force and validity of a judgment or order, which must be complied with by the parties. We say so because we are mindful of the fact that where the Court has made no order of any kind whatsoever (as was the case here) it would be impossible for the injured party to invoke the power of the Court so as to compel the defaulting party to carry out the bargain struck by the parties The aggrieved party can only seek his remedy upon the new agreement which has been reached between the parties. But that is another matter; such arrangement between the parties that has not been incorporated in a judgment of the Court is not, and should never be regarded as, a consent judgment." - Per Ibekwe, J.S.C. inAbel O. Woluchem v. Dr. Charles Inko Tariah Wokoma Suit No. S.C. 90/1973; (1974) 9 N.S.C.C. 181 at 189.

(6) "A consent judgment is a final decision, since it finally determines the issues and dispute between the parties See: N.W.R.D. v. Jaiyesimi (1963) 1 All N.L.R. 215. It is a final decision within S. 241(1)(a) of the Constitution 1999. However, leave of the High Court or of the Court of Appeal is required for the exercise of a right of appeal. See S. 241(2)(c) of the Constitution 1999. A judgment of Court which finally settles the rights of the parties in the subject matter of the claim in the sense that it was not given in default of a statement of defence is a final judgment. See: Babajide v. Adisa (1966) All N.L.R. 254." - Per Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C. in Afegbai v.A.-G., Edo State Suit No. S.C. 111/1996; (2001) 33 W.R.N. 29 at 49; (2001) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt.733) 425 at 454.

(7) "A consent judgment is a judgment, the provisions and terms of which are settled and agreed to by the parties to the action and due effect may be given to it by the Court." - Per I.T. Muhammad, J.C.A. in Lamurde v. Adamawa State J.S.C. Suit No. CA/J/40/97; (1999) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 629) 86 at 99.

(8) "Consent judgment is a judgment, which finally puts the issues in a controversy to rest with the consent of both parties. An amendment of pleading cannot by any stretch of imagination amount to consent judgment." - Per Ogebe, J.C.A. in Arewa Text. Plc. v. Abdullahi & Bros. Musawa Ltd. Suit No. CA/K/54/97; (1998) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 554) 508 at 514.

(9) "Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition Vol. 26 paragraph 527 contains the following statement of the law on Judgment by Consent: "If either party is willing to consent to a judgment or order against himself or if both parties are agreed as to what the judgment or order ought to be due effect may be given by the Court to such a consent. "See: Green v. Rozen (1955) 2 All E.R. 797, (1955) 1 W.L.R. 741 Lees v. Motor Insurers Bureau (1952) 2 All E.R. 511 (1956) 1 W.L.R. 620 CA. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v. IRC (1963) 1 All E.R. 618 at 627 (1963) 1 W.L.R. 421 at 430 affirmed (1963) 3 All E.R. 259; (1963) 1 W.L.R. 120 C.A. An order made by consent but without the sanction or direction of the Court, should contain a statement on its face that it is an order by consent". In the case of Green v. Rozen (supra) Glade. J. at p. 799 800 gave 5 methods of disposing of an action when terms of settlement are arrived at when the action comes on for trial or in the course of the hearing. Therein the learned Judge said: - "There are various ways in which an action can be disposed of when terms of settlement are arrived at when the action comes up for trial or in the course of the hearing. I myself have had experience of at least five methods of disposing of an action in such circumstances and those five methods are not exhaustive. One can in an appropriate case, as was done in Re Hearn (1913) 108 L.T. 452 affd. C.A. 108 L.T. 737 to which counsel for the plaintiff referred, have the terms of the compromise made a rule of Court, provided that it...