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
SHARE ON
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
It is now beyond argument that a court is not a Father Christmas and as such does not award a party that which the said party did not ask for. Put differently, a court does not go outside the prayers of the parties to make orders not contemplated by them. See Yaro v. Arewa Const. Ltd. (supra). However, where the order, though not expressly asked for, is necessary, in the circumstance of the case to give effect to the final Judgment of the court, the court will be justified to make such order. Such an order is usually called a consequential order which must flow from the Judgment of the court.
— J.I. Okoro, JCA. Mudasiru & Ors. v Abdullahi & Ors. (2011) – CA/L/58/2010
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
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
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)
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.”
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry