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)
WHAT IS A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER?
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