Short answer. The respondent is ousted and altogether excluded from the office, and the petitioner or relator recovers costs; the court may also render further judgment determining the parties' respective rights to the office, position, or franchise as justice requires, resolving competing claims in the same proceeding.

What the law says

When the respondent is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising a public office, position or franchise, judgment shall be rendered that such respondent be ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the petitioner or relator, as the case may be, recover his costs. Such further judgment may be rendered determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires.

Rule 66, Section 9 — Judgment where usurpation found. Read the full provision →

The core remedy: ouster

Once the respondent is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising the public office, position, or franchise in question, the judgment orders that the respondent be ousted and altogether excluded from it. This is the central purpose of a quo warranto judgment — removing someone who has no right to the office, position, or franchise from continuing to exercise it against the rightful claimant or the public interest at large. Ouster is a coercive remedy in the sense that it does not depend on the respondent's voluntary compliance; the judgment itself operates to strip the respondent of any further claim to the position.

Costs go to the petitioner or relator

Alongside the ouster, the judgment also directs that the petitioner or relator, whichever applies to the case, recover their costs from the respondent, compensating them for the expense of pursuing an action that vindicated the government's or the relator's interest in the office. This cost-shifting places the financial burden of the wrongful occupation on the person found to have usurped the office rather than on the party who had to bring suit to correct it. Recovering costs is a modest remedy compared to ouster itself, but it still signals that pursuing a meritorious quo warranto action should not be a purely out-of-pocket exercise for the person who brought it.

Settling everyone's rights, not just ousting one person

Because multiple claimants may have been joined in the same action, the court may render further judgment determining the respective rights of all the parties to the office, position, or franchise, as justice requires — so the case can resolve not just who must leave, but who is actually entitled to take over. This avoids the need for a second lawsuit once the usurper is removed just to determine who among the remaining claimants should actually hold the office. This makes a quo warranto judgment potentially far more comprehensive than a simple order removing one wrongful occupant from an office.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.