Kubulgoda Kankanamge Piyadasa vs Kubulgoda Kankanamge Edwin – CA 930/96F-2011

In Kubulgoda Kankanamge Edwin and another v. Kubulgoda Kankanamge Piyadasa, the court addressed whether a defendant-appellant may have a consent judgment and decree set aside on the grounds of lack of understanding of the settlement terms and whether a right of appeal exists when a district judge refuses such a set-aside request. It was held that the terms of the consent settlement were read, explained, and genuinely accepted in open court, therefore binding the parties, and there was no right of appeal against the refusal to vacate this order. This decision reaffirmed the principle that consent judgments, duly entered and explained in court, are final and binding in the absence of fraud or coercion. The reasoning relied on statutory limitations on the appealability of consent decrees and