PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

It is a well settled principle of law that a court of law must not grant to a party a relief which they have not sought or which is more than they have claimed.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Iguh, JSC, in Afrotec Technical Services (Nig) Ltd v. Mia & Sons Ltd & Anor (2000) NLC-1321992(SC) at p. 54; Paras. B–C.
"It is a well settled principle of law that a court of law must not grant to a party a relief which he has not sought or which is more than he has claimed."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

This reiterates Principle 358. Courts cannot grant: (1) relief not sought—remedies party didn’t request; (2) relief exceeding what’s claimed—more than party asked for (higher damages, broader orders). This limitation serves: party autonomy (parties control claims), fair notice (defendants know claims faced), and preventing judicial overreach (courts respond to requests, don’t impose preferred remedies). Courts are bound by: relief claimed in pleadings, specific amounts/remedies sought, and cannot exceed or add to them. Examples of prohibited relief: plaintiff claims N100,000, court awards N150,000; plaintiff seeks declaration, court grants injunction not requested; plaintiff claims damages, court orders specific performance. However, courts may: grant lesser relief (included in greater), reformulate relief granting substance of what’s sought (if clearly intended), or grant alternative remedies within same category if sought generally. The principle prevents: surprise relief, judicial activism in remedies, and binding defendants to relief they had no notice of. Parties must: specifically claim desired relief, quantify monetary claims, or accept that unclaimed relief cannot be granted.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE