Facts:

Sometime in 2015, the 1st Appellant belonging to the 2nd Appellant, was alleged to have caused damages to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Ibeto jetty which culminated to its arrest by an order of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt (lower court) wherein an action was instituted against the 1st Appellant claiming monetary damages. Parties opted for amicable settlement and consequent thereto filed their terms of settlement dated 27th July 2015 and consent judgment was entered on 30th July 2015 by the lower court. The 1st Appellant paid the 1st and 2nd Respondents the agreed sum of US $1.2 million as full and final settlement. Thereafter, the owner of the vessel commenced arbitration proceedings in London against Navig8 Inc. for damages it suffered at Ibeto jetty and for consequential settlement sum paid to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Also, the charterer of the vessel commenced arbitration proceedings in London against Palmex Agencies Nigeria Limited, being the sub-charterer, so as to defray any cost that may be- awarded by the arbitral tribunal against it. By virtue of a time charter-party agreement, Navig8 Inc. chartered the 1st Appellant which it placed in the bulk pool of Navig8 Bulk Pool Inc. and which it subsequently sub-chartered to Palmex Agencies Nigeria Limited.

As a result of the series of arbitration proceedings, the 1st and 2nd Respondents by originating summons commenced an action against the appellants and the 3rd Respondents at the lower court claiming a declaration that the terms of settlement dated 27th July 20 15 between parties thereto which was entered as the consent judgment of the court on 30th July 2015 between the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the 1st Appellant was binding on all the parties to the terms of settlement and their privies. They also claimed a declaration that the terms of settlement dated as defined by clause 1 thereof was inclusive of the 2nd Appellant, as owner of the 1st appellant, and its privies; a declaration that clause 7 of the terms of settlement which stated that the parties shall bear all of their own legal costs incurred in relation to the incident, the claim and the agreement and that parties hereby waived any right whatsoever they may have pursuant to any re-litigation or arbitration of the subject matter of the agreement estopped the parties the suit from re-litigating or arbitrating the subject matter of the litigation in suit No. FHC/PH/SC/166/2015; and a declaration that the parties to the terms of settlement now judgment of the court and their privies are bound by the judgment and are estopped from re-litigating or arbitrating on the subject matter as contained in suit No. FHC/PH/SC/166/2015.

In reaction, the 1st and 2nd Appellants filed a counter affidavit in opposition to the originating summons and also filed a notice of preliminary objection. The 3rd Respondent also filed a notice of preliminary objection. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed respective counter-affidavits to the notices of preliminary objection of the Appellants and the 3rd Respondent. After hearing the objections and the substantive matter, the trial court dismissed the objections and entered judgment in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The trial court held that the consent judgment remained valid, subsisting and binding on the parties and their privies in respect of the jetty incident and that the appellants ought to have sought the leave of court to appeal the consent judgment rather than opting to institute arbitration proceeding in London. It found that the subject matter of the suit at the lower court was the same with that of the arbitration proceeding commenced in London.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.