“In the eyes of the law, consequential denotes “following as a result of inference, following or resulting indirectly”, see Eze v. Gov, Abia State (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 192 at 216, per Rhodes – Vivour, JSC. Then, “A consequential order is not one merely incidental to a decision but one necessarily flowing directly and naturally from, and inevitably consequent upon it,” see Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 167) 270 at 288, per Nnaemeka – Agu, JSC. Thus, a consequential order gives meaning and effect to a judgment without granting a fresh relief. It must be a product or bye-product of the main suit and the evidence. Hence, the law gives the court the inherent power to grant consequential orders in deserving cases, see Eagle Super Pack (Nig)  Lad v. ACB Plc. (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 20; Akeem v. University of Ibadan (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 584; Regd. Trustee, Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 158) 514; Amechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227; Unity Bank Plc. V. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 293; Eze v. Gov. Abia State (supra); Osuji v. Ekeocha (supra)/(2009) 7 SCNJ 248; Ishola v. Folorunso (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1210) 169; OSIEC v. AC (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226); Tindafai v. Jara (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 19; Namman v. Hajo (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1515) 411.”

PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A. IN THE CASE OF Peoples Redemption Party (Prp) V Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors :LER [2018]CA/AK/124/2017