Introduction
A visit to the locus in quo — the actual location or site of the dispute — is a recognized evidential tool under Nigerian law. It allows the court to physically inspect a disputed property or location when such an inspection is necessary to resolve ambiguities, appreciate the evidence, or confirm disputed facts.
The practice is particularly common in land disputes where the physical features, boundaries, or structures on the land are in controversy.
Below are key judicial pronouncements clarifying the purpose, necessity, and procedure for visiting the locus in quo.
Purpose of a Visit to the Locus in Quo
The Court of Appeal in CAC v. JUDE ELSWITCH LTD (2016) LPELR-41217(CA) explained that the purpose of a visit to the locus in quo is for the court to see the subject matter and clarify contradictions or uncertainties that have arisen from the evidence of the parties regarding the physical state of the subject of the action.
Similarly, in AMOS v. ONUH (2025) LPELR-81267(CA), the court emphasized that in law, the main purpose of a view or a visit to the locus in quo is to assist the Court to understand fully the questions in issue in a case, to appreciate and follow the evidence before it and properly to apply such evidence in arriving at its decision. Thus, the confirmation at the locus in quo by either the parties, their witnesses or even neutral person cannot be merely wished away. A visit to locus in quo in land case helps, in addition to the evidence given in Court, for the Court to see and feel by itself the fixtures and dimensions and other peculiar characteristics of the land in dispute over which evidence may have been led before it.
When a Visit is Necessary
In SHUAIBU v. FAYU & ANOR (2024) LPELR-80038(CA), it was held that when oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of a material object, the court may inspect it if it deems fit, in line with Section 127(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 2011. This is often necessary where there are conflicting claims about the same property.
The Court in NDU & ORS v. OBASI & ORS (2023) LPELR-60956 (CA)clarified that a visit is only imperative where evidential ambiguities exist that can only be resolved by such an inspection.
Many land disputes arise because parties rely on incomplete or inaccurate information about the property before acquisition. Conducting proper due diligence before acquiring land can help prevent such disputes.
When a Visit is Unnecessary
A visit to the locus in quo is not required where there are no disputes as to the location, extent, or features of the land in question. In ONWUKA & ANOR v. LUMARC AGRO RESOURCES LTD & ORS (2024) LPELR-62344(CA), the court held that the visit may be dispensed with even upon request if there is no ambiguity in the evidence.
Similarly, in IORLIAM & ORS v. AKULE (2023) LPELR-59608(CA), the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision not to visit the site where the identity and features of the disputed land were well known to all parties.
Procedure for Visiting the Locus in Quo
The procedure is laid down in Section 127(2) of the Evidence Act 2011.According to NIMYEL v. AKOGUN (2021) LPELR-56318(CA):
“The procedure to be adopted on a visit to the locus in quo has been categorically set out under Section 127 (2) (a) and (b) of the Evidence Act, Cap E 15, 2011 as follows: “127 (2), when an inspection of property under this Section is required to be held at a place outside the Courtroom, the Court shall either (a) Be adjourned to the place where the subject matter of the said inspection may be and the proceeding shall continue at that place until Court further adjourn back to its original place of sitting, or to some other place of sitting; or (b) Attend and make an inspection of the subject matter only, evidence, if any, of what transpired there being given in Court afterwards, and in either case the Defendant, if any shall be present.” As can be seen above, the proceedings required by law to be carried out at the locus in quo did not include or make any provision for the learned Counsel to any of the parties to either testify, lead evidence or better still show the Court the various areas where the features of the land can be found. This is particularly so because the visit to the locus in quo is a continuation of the proceedings. See the case of ENIGWE V. AKAIGWE (1992) LPELR-1145 (SC); and by right, when and where necessary, parties may be called to give evidence and be cross-examined but when the visit is strictly for the inspection of the subject matter, the Court is duty bound to inspect the disputed land and then return to the Courtroom for evidence to be adduced.” Per IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, JCA (Pp 39 – 40 Paras D – F)
In AMSAMI v. KOLOMI & ORS (2021) LPELR-56155(CA), the court stressed that both parties must be given the opportunity to question each witness during the inspection.
Locus in Quo in Land Litigation
In many Nigerian land disputes, physical features such as buildings, boundary marks, streams, and roads play a crucial role in determining ownership. A visit to the locus in quo enables the court to observe these features directly rather than relying solely on oral testimony.
Key Takeaways
A visit to the locus in quo is a tool to clarify evidence, not a substitute for it.
It is only necessary where there are material conflicts or ambiguities in the evidence.
The visit must follow the procedure in Section 127 of the Evidence Act 2011, ensuring fairness and participation of both parties.
Disclaimer:
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on specific cases or legal issues, please consult a qualified legal practitioner.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.