Whether a Judgment Entered Pursuant to a Plea Bargain Agreement is a Consent Judgment

CASE TITLE: DANKAWU UNIVERSAL SERVICES LTD v. FRN (2026) LPELR-83503(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 27TH MARCH, 2026

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Plea Bargain.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the Gombe State High Court in CHARGE NO. GM/69C/2023: FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA vs. ABDULRAHMAN MUSTAPHA BABA & ANOR., delivered on 14th May 2025. The Appellant was the 2nd Defendant at the trial, while its alter ego, Abdulrahman Mustapha Baba, was the 1st Defendant. The judgment of the lower Court was based on a plea bargain agreement reached by the parties.

The Appellant and his co-defendant entered a transaction with the nominal complainant for the credit sale of fertilizer and pesticides to them valued at N149,760,000.00 (One hundred and forty-nine million, seven hundred and sixty thousand Naira). In a bid to show buoyancy, the Appellant and its co-defendant claimed that they had about 500 bags of rice in stock and they also gave the nominal complainant the certificate of occupancy of a piece of land in Kaduna State as security for the transaction.

It was agreed that payment for the fertilizer and pesticides would be made within forty (40) days. The Appellant and its co-defendant defaulted in making payment, whether as agreed or at all. The nominal complainant requested that the bags of rice, which the Appellant and its co-defendant claimed that they had in stock, be given to him in lieu of payment. It turned out that there were no 500 bags of rice in stock as claimed by the Appellant. It then became apparent to the nominal complainant that he had been swindled. The nominal complainant reported to the law enforcement agency, and the Appellant, and its co-defendant were later charged on a four-count Charge, which led to the plea bargain agreement upon which the judgment of the trial Court was based.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

In determination of the appeal, the Court suo motu raised and considered the issue of the competence of the appeal and in addition considered the merits of the appeal.

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court struck out the appeal for being incompetent, and in consideration of the appeal on merit, dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- LEAVE OF COURT/LEAVE TO APPEAL: Whether leave of Court is required to appeal against consent judgment; effect of failure to obtain leave
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- PLEA BARGAIN: Meaning and nature of a plea bargain agreement; whether a judgment entered pursuant to a plea bargain agreement is a consent judgment
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- PLEA BARGAIN: Statutory provisions regarding plea bargain; Procedure to be adopted by Court where the prosecution and the accused person enter a plea bargain agreement under Gombe State ACJL 2020
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- PLEA BARGAIN: Whether a Court can make consequential orders to give effect to a plea bargain agreement for restitution/compensation
• INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE- GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Position of the law where general and special provisions apply to a subject matter

OTHER: Doctrine of privity of contract and the effect where same is not established on the liability of a party? See IRONBAR v. CRBDA IRONBAR v. CRBDA (2025) LPELR-81317(SC) Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. (Pp. 35-38 Paras. B-B)

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol