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)
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