Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

WHAT IS A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER?

Dictum

A consequential order is essentially one which would make the principal order effectual and effective. In other words, it is one which has a bearing with the main relief(s) claimed by a party. It is thus granted usually to give meaning and effect to the main relief(s) as such a consequential order can only relates to the matters adjudicated upon. See INAKOJU V. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (prt. 1025) 423. In LIMAN V. MOHAMMED (1999)9 NWLR (prt 617) 116, it was held that a consequential order is a necessary order flowing directly and naturally from and inevitably consequent from the judgment already given. It therefore need not be claimed.

— M.L. Shuaibu, JCA. FBN v Benlion (2021) – CA/C/31/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

PARTY TO OBEY COURT RULING UNTIL REVERSED

It is true that the present Applicants appealed against the above Ruling of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal has not yet been heard. It is only the Supreme Court that can validly pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of the Appeal Court’s Ruling and Order. The present Applicants are bound whether they like it or not, to abide by the ruling and comply with the order of the Court of Appeal until reversed.

– Oputa, JSC. Military Governor v. Ojukwu (1986) – SC.241/1985

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT IS A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER

And I start by asking myself what a consequential order really means. It is, in my view, an order which flows necessarily, naturally, directly and consequentially from a decision or judgment delivered by a court in a cause or matter. It arises logically and inevitably by reason of the fact that the order in question is per force obviously and patently consequent upon the decision given by the court and did not need to be specifically claimed as a distinct or separate head or item of relief. The purpose of a consequential order is to give effect to the decision or judgment of the court but not by granting an entirely new, unclaimed and/or incongruous relief which was not contested by the parties at the trial and neither did it fall in alignment with the original reliefs claimed in the suit nor was it in the contemplation of the parties that such relief would be the subject matter of a formal executory judgment or order against either side to the dispute. A consequential order may also not be properly made to give to a party, an entitlement to a relief he has not established in his favour. – Iguh JSC. Awoniyi v. AMORC (2000)

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT ORDER TREATED WITH LEVITY REDUCES CONFIDENCE OF CITIZEN IN JUDICIAL PROCESS

If Governments treat court order with levity and contempt the confidence of the citizen in the courts will be seriously eroded and the effect of that will be the beginning of anarchy in replacement of the rule of law. If anyone should be wary of orders of court it is the authorities; for they, more than anyone else, need the application of the rule of law in order to govern properly and effectively.

– Uwais, JSC. Military Governor v. Ojukwu (1986) – SC.241/1985

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT IS A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER

So what is a consequential order? A consequential order is one giving effect to a judgment or order to which it is consequential. It is directly traceable to or flowing from that judgment or order duly prayed for and made.

– Katsina-Alu, JSC. Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003)

Was this dictum helpful?

IT IS A SERIOUS MATTER TO FLOUT A POSITIVE ORDER OF COURT

I think it is a very serious matter for anyone to flout a positive order of a court and proceed to taunt the Court further by seeking a remedy in a higher court while still in contempt of the lower court. It is more serious when the act of flouting the order of the court, the contempt of the court, is by the Executive.

– Eso, JSC. Military Governor v. Ojukwu (1986) – SC.241/1985

Was this dictum helpful?

CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER GIVES EFFECT TO THE JUDGEMENT AND NEED NOT BE ASKED FOR

Amaechi v. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (2008) LPELR-446 where the Supreme Court per Musdapher, J.S.C. held that: “It is the law even where a person has not specifically asked for a relief from a Court, the Court has the power to grant such a relief as a consequential relief. A consequential order must be one made giving effect to the judgment which it follows. It is not an order made subsequent to a judgment or contains matters. It is settled law that Court can order an injunction even if it is not specifically claimed but appears incidentally necessary to protect the established right.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.