[1] This court by its judgment dated 16 October 2009 found for the appellant on the basis that she is the beneficiary under a constructive trust of which the second respondent is trustee. The subject matter of the trust is the property referred to in that judgment. Argument was sought from counsel as to the nature of the specific relief that should be granted having regard to the facts of this case and also as to the type of costs order that should be made. Evidence was filed by both sides as to the present state of affairs. It emerged, undisputed, that the second respondent had sold the subject property to a third party and that the instrument of transfer had been presented for registration. To prevent any further fraud and for the purpose of preserving the subject property in specie, on 27 October 2009 we directed the Registrar of Titles to enter his caveat pursuant to s 320 read with 321 of the National Land Code 1965. We did so in the exercise of the powers conferred by s 417 of the National Land Code. It is settled that this court has ample jurisdiction to make consequential orders to give effect to its judgment (see, Tan Soo Bing & Ors v. Tan Kooi Fook, [1996] 3 MLJ 547 ) including directing the entry of a registrar's caveat (see, Seet Soh Ngoh v. Venkateswara Sdn Bhd & Anor; [1976] 1 MLJ 242 ) and to ensure that its judgment in particular cases is not defeated by intervening events.

[2] An illustration is provided by Sungei Biak Tin Mines Ltd v. Saw Choo Theng & Anor (No 2), [1970] 1 MLJ 199. There, the former Federal court gave judgment for the defendant/appellant holding that it had not been guilty of a breach of a mining sub-lease. However, before the appeal was heard by the Federal court, the respondents had sub-leased the land to a third party. After judgment, the appellant moved for an order that the Collector of Land Revenue should delete the cancellation of the sub-lease. The application was opposed by the respondents and by the third party. The court allowed the application, ordered the deletion of the sub-lease in favour of the third party and directed the re-registration of the appellant. Suffian FJ who delivered the judgment of the court said: