Consent in writ case to resolve land dispute before Government Agent ended litigation
Consent Judgments Too End the Dispute Once and for All: Res Judicata
The Supreme Court has ruled that a consent judgment, where parties agree to let a dispute be decided in a particular way, has the same finality as any court ruling, and once given, the matter cannot be reopened (Res Judicata). In this case, the parties had expressly consented in earlier writ proceedings to resolve their land dispute before the Divisional Secretary, acting as the “Agent”. That agreement, the Court said, was meant to bring the matter to a close.
It all began when the Ampara Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd marched into court, challenging a Divisional Secretary’s decision over a piece of state land. Soon after, the tables turned: H.M. Herath Abeyweera filed his own writ application, claiming the land for himself. An inquiry was held, a decision given, but the dispute refused to die. Abeyweera filed another writ.
This time, rather than fight it out in full, the parties shook hands on a deal: the Divisional Secretary, acting as the “Agent”, would hold a comprehensive inquiry and make the final call. That inquiry went ahead, and the Agent’s ruling landed squarely against the Co-operative.
Unwilling to accept defeat, the Co-operative tried again, filing a fresh writ in the Court of Appeal. But the court was unmoved, saying the earlier consent order had settled things once and for all.
The Co-operative argued that the Agent had gone beyond his remit by deciding on a different extent of land than before. The Supreme Court refused this line of attack, holding that the consent order gave the Agent full discretion to determine all relevant matters, including the land’s extent—and that his decision was therefore within the agreed mandate.
“…It is trite law that consent judgments and decrees are nevertheless Res Judicata, for, although no judicial decision is pronounced. The Court gives its judicial sanction and coercive authority to what the parties have settled. See Cohen Vs. Fonesco (1926) 1 K.B. 119; Kinch Vs. Walcott 1929 A.C. 482. In the case of Sinniah Vs. Eliakutty (1932) 34 NLR 37, it was laid down that a judgment by consent is as effective by way of estoppel as a judgment whereby the Court exercised its mind in a contested case and has the full effect of a Res Judicata between the parties…” – Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon
Case No: S.C. Appeal No: 212/2017 [Decided on 28.05.2025]
Before: : Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J. : Menaka Wijesundera, J. : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.
