Facts:

Facts:
The appellant entered into a leasehold with the 2nd respondent over a landed
property situate at No. 1, Ozumba Mbadiwe Avenue, Victoria Island, Lagos which
at the time the lease was taken, was already a subject matter of litigation at the
High Court of Lagos State between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent.
Eventually, the parties explored alternative dispute resolution and the matter was
amicably resolved and a consent judgment was executed and entered as the
judgment of the court. The consent judgment recognized the 1st respondent as
the rightful owner and consequently, a warrant of possession was issued by the
court. The consent judgment was not appealed against and the 1st respondent
took legal steps to enforce it by ejecting the appellant from the property. The
appellant felt aggrieved by the execution of the judgment and filed an action at
the High Court of Lagos State seeking declarations that the execution of the
judgment was unlawful and that the 1st respondent had no legal right to take or
retain possession of the premises from the appellant.
Responding to the suit of the appellant, the 1st respondent filed its defence
alongside a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear
and determine the matter. The gravamen of the objection was anchored on the
ground that the court was incompetent to sit on appeal over the decision of a
court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The 1st respondent contended that the consent
judgment was a decision of the same High Court where the appellant filed its suit
challenging the decision of the court. After hearing the parties on the preliminary
objection, the trial court gave its ruling in favour of the 1st respondent and dismissed
the suit of the appellant in addition to the award of N150,000.00 (One Hundred
and Fifty Thousand Naira) as cost. The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment
of the court and filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division
urging it to reverse the trial court.
One of the issues raised for determination was whether the appellant was bound
by the consent judgment of the High Court which granted possession of the land
to the 1st respondent and upon which execution was granted and executed.