PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

A consequential order is not one merely incidental to a decision but one necessarily flowing directly and naturally from, and inevitably consequent upon it; it must be giving effect to the judgment already given not by granting a fresh and unclaimed or unproven relief; a proper consequential order need not be claimed but a substantive order must be claimed and sustained from the facts before the court.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Uthman Mohammed, JSC, adopting Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC in Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 167) 270, in Attorney-General of the Federation v. A. I. C. Limited (2000) NLC-1851994(SC) at p. 10; Paras. B–C.
"A consequential order is not one merely incidental to a decision but one necessarily flowing directly and naturally from, and inevitably consequent upon it. It must be giving effect to the judgment already given not by granting a fresh and unclaimed or unproven relief... A proper consequential order need not be claimed but a substantive order must be claimed and sustained from the facts before the court."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

This distinguishes consequential from substantive orders. Consequential order: Necessarily flows from judgment—direct, natural, inevitable consequence giving effect to judgment already given. Not consequential: Merely incidental, fresh relief, or unclaimed/unproven relief. Key distinction: Consequential orders: give effect to judgment (implement/enforce decision), need not be claimed (flow automatically from judgment), and are natural consequences. Substantive orders: grant new relief, must be claimed, and require factual proof. Examples: Consequential: Costs following event, interest on judgment debt, delivery up pursuant to declaration. Substantive: Damages not claimed, relief of different nature, or fresh matters. “Necessarily flowing…inevitably consequent” means: automatic result of judgment, required to implement decision, and natural/direct consequence. “Giving effect to judgment” means: implementing decision made, not granting something new. Courts can: make consequential orders without claim (automatic from judgment), but cannot: grant substantive relief unclaimed, award fresh relief, or decide unpleaded matters. This serves: enabling judgment implementation, distinguishing automatic consequences from new relief, and maintaining rule that relief must be claimed (except natural consequences). The principle permits courts to: complete judgments through consequential orders, while preventing: granting unclaimed substantive relief disguised as consequential orders.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE