Background
This dispute concerns ownership of a parcel of land measuring 100 feet by 100 feet located at Hycent Ugbo Avenue, behind Irumekhae Street, Irhirhi Village, Ward 36A, Oko, Benin City. The Claimant, Rev. (Mrs.) Stella Samuel Ekhator, sued by her lawful attorney Mr. Adetunji Adeyoyin, sought a declaration of title and delivery of possession. The Defendant and Counter-claimant, Mr. Godwin Ekhator, contested her claim with a counterclaim over the same land, both relying on survey plans LAED/041/94 and NSK/ED/D/002/2013 respectively.
Pleadings were exchanged, and the Claimant opened her case on 2017-06-14. The Defendant was scheduled to open his defense on 2017-07-07 but did not do so. Instead, on 2018-02-23, counsel indicated an intention to explore amicable settlement. By 2018-03-28, the parties had filed terms of settlement setting out agreed resolutions.
Issues
- Whether the parties’ terms of settlement resolve all disputes between them.
- Whether the Counter-claimant’s agreement to pay ₦1,500,000 amounts to abandonment of his counterclaim.
- Whether the Court should ratify the settlement and dismiss the counterclaim.
- Whether judgment should be entered in favor of the Claimant as per the settlement terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court applied the principle that where parties voluntarily agree to terms and file a consent judgment or settlement, the Court will ratify and give effect to that agreement. Under applicable procedural rules, a consent order based on terms of settlement is binding and enforceable once the Court is satisfied it reflects a clear and complete resolution of all issues. The abandonment of a counterclaim is effected by the Counter-claimant’s express undertaking to pay the agreed sum, thereby removing the need for further adjudication on merits.
Court Findings
- The terms of settlement filed on 2018-03-28 demonstrably resolve every aspect of the dispute, including title, possession, and claims for damages or costs.
- By agreeing to pay ₦1,500,000 to the Claimant, the Counter-claimant has effectively abandoned his counterclaim.
- No outstanding issues remain for trial; the parties’ agreement is clear, voluntary, and equitable.
- The Claimant’s entitlement to relief is confined to the terms as agreed in paragraphs 1–4 of the settlement.
- The settlement does not contravene any statutory provision or public policy and is fair to both parties.
Conclusion
The Court hereby orders the Counter-claim dismissed. Judgment is entered for the Claimant in accordance with paragraphs 1–4 of the terms of settlement filed on 2018-03-28. Costs shall abide the event. The parties are to comply with the settlement terms forthwith, and the Registrar is directed to give effect to this consent judgment.
Significance
This decision underscores the judiciary’s supportive stance towards party-driven dispute resolution in land matters. By ratifying mutually agreed terms, the Court preserves judicial resources and fosters finality. It highlights the enforceability of consent judgments and the principle that a counterclaim may be abandoned through clear settlement provisions. Legal practitioners can rely on this precedent to encourage clients to negotiate settlements, reduce litigation time, and secure binding resolutions without full trial. Moreover, the case affirms that survey plans and formal documentation, when combined with a clear settlement record, provide a reliable basis for consent orders in property disputes.