The Law on Visit to Locus in quo

Visit to locus in quo is a category of real evidence. Visit to locus in quo requires the court in a certain matter to be moved to the location of the subject-matter in dispute or scene of crime. Section 127(1)(b) provide for the power of court to visit to locus in quo. The provision of the law provides that if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the court may, if it deems fit inspect any moveable or improvable property the inspection of which may be material to the proper determination of the question in dispute.

The essence of the visit is to afford the court the opportunity to view the fact in issue or some relevant facts in the trial so as to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties before it can resolve the dispute accordingly. In the case of Obi v. Mbionwu, the court held that a visit to locus in quo is at the discretion of the court and the purpose is to enable the court to appreciate the issues raised by the parties and also to resolve any ambiguity in the case of the parties. A further explanation was given by the Supreme Court in the case of Anyanwu v. Mbara, where it stated the power to visit the locus in quo in land matters derives from Section 127 of the Evidence Act 2011 and that when both parties to a land suit show respective boundaries they claimed but give necessary but conflicting evidence about the existence and location of a particular feature thereon, then the need would arise for the trial court to supplement and resolve what it heard with what it could see by visiting the locus. 

However, it is not open to a party to complain that the trial judge failed to visit the locus in quo when he failed to adduce sufficient evidence to give rise to conflicting evidence on the existence and the location of a particular feature therein but expect a trial judge ta suo motu supplement the oral evidence by such an inspection.

In Briggs v. Briggs, the trial court decided to proceed to the locus in quo after the case was adjourned for judgment. The trial court decided to visit the locus in quo because from the evidence already adduced by both parties, there was a material contradiction on the issue of trespass. While the plaintiff stated that the defendant trespassed on his land by building a house on it, the defendant maintained that he did no build any house on the plaintiff’s land. Upon the court’s visit to locus in quo it found out that the defendant actually build on the plaintiff’s land. The defendant appealed against the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the trial judge recorded in judgment certain facts of which there was evidence on record and that the procedure stipulated under the now Section 127 of the Act was not followed. The Supreme Court held that all the facts recorded in the judgment were based on the evidence adduced at the trial and since no evidence was taken at the locus in quo there was no need to reconvene the court for cross-examination.

The court further held that there are two procedures which the court can adopt under section 127 of the Evidence Act when it visits a locus in quo

The court shall either be adjourned to the place where the subject-matter of the said inspection may be and the proceedings shall continue at the place until the court further adjourns back to its original place of sitting; or 

The court shall attend and make an inspection of the subject-matter only, evidence if any, of what transpired at the venue to being given to court afterwards.

The court in the instant case (Briggs v. Briggs) followed the second alternative method.

In the instant case of Mallam Garba and Mallam Gabo, based on the provision of section 127 and judicial pronouncements cited above, the procedure adopted by the court on visit to locus in quo was proper. Mallam Garba does not have a good case on appeal.