Government acquired part of the plaintiff's land at Isiohor near Ugbowo and the parcel of land remained acquired. The plaintiff went to court and sued for compensation to be paid to him in respect of the land. Compensation was not paid. While the case was in court the defendant negotiated settlement with the plaintiff's Solicitor to give another parcel of land to the plaintiff in lieu of monetary compensation. The plaintiff through his Solicitor acting as agent, accepted this proposal, the defendant produced the certificate of occupancy in favour of the plaintiff and delivered it to the court when the settlement was regarded as completed, and the terms were filed in court enrolled as the judgement of the court. It was a negotiated and settled agreement which led to a consent judgement of the court. Between the defendants and the plaintiff's Solicitor, indeed the plaintiff himself, the matter was regarded as having been laid to rest. What then followed was that when the plaintiff's case was still in court he applied to the defendant t make a Grant to him out of the defendants land at their new layout land at Etete in Benin City. The plaintiff did not inform his Solicitor about this.

The defendants agreed to make a Grant of the plot of the land to the plaintiff and use it to offset the compensation that the plaintiff had demanded on his acquired land as Isiohor. The problem that has arisen is that the plaintiff is contending that the Grant of the plot to him had nothing to do with the demand of compensation for his land for which he sued the defendants, saying that if he know that fact before the enrolment or the consent judgement he would not have agreed to it.

The trial judge resolving the issues in the case held that the consent judgement to which the appellant's solicitor agreed was a proper judgement of the court. That the appellant's solicitor's consent was binding on him was an issue in the Court of Appeal but it is not one in this appeal.

Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal by a majority dismissed the appeal. The Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.