The purpose of an inspection of a locus by a court of law is not to substitute the eye for the ear but rather to clear any doubt or ambiguities that may arise in the evidence or to resolve any conflict in the evidence as to physical features. Atanda v. Iliasu (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 681)1469 p. 1484, paras. D-E; Ipinlaiye II v. Olukotun (1996) NWLR (Pt. 453) 148. Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 9
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 the court further adjourns 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. Section 127(2)(a) & (b) of the Evidence Act; Chukwuogor v. Obuora (1987) 2 NSCC 1063 SC.; Briggs v. Briggs (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 228) 128 SC.; Okunrinmeta v. Agitan (2002) FWLR (Pt. 100) 1377 CA.
The court has power under section 127 of the Evidence Act to visit the locus in quo. This visit is regarded as part of the evidence called in the case. A court should not only accede to application for visit to locus in quo, it can do so suo motu. It is the discretion of the court to accede to an application to visit the scene but such discretion should be exercised judicially and must be acceded to if only doing so will give certainty to the land the parties refer to. Jibo v. Gambo (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 689) 1219, at pp. 1227 – 1228, paras. G-A; Anyanwu v. Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 386; Ajao v. Ajigun (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 282) 389.
The general principles of visit to or inspection of a locus in quo. These are: 1. There is no rule of law which determines at what stage in a trial a visit or inspection must be made. 2. A court should undertake a visit to the locus in quo where such a visit will clear a doubt as to the accuracy of a piece of evidence. 3. Where there are two conflicting evidence adduced by parties to a case, it is necessary to visit the locus in quo if such a visit can resolve the conflict in the evidence. 4. Where a trial judge makes a visit to the locus in quo, it is not proper for him to treat his perception at the scene as a finding of fact without evidence of such perception being given by a witness either at the locus or later in court after the inspection. 5. On a visit to the locus in quo, it is necessary for the trial judge to make a record in the course of the proceedings on what transpires at the scene. However, if the trial judge failed to make the record but made statement in his judgment about the visit, such statement would be taken as accurate account of what happened and therefore final, unless of course the contrary can be established by the party that impugns the record. Where a visit is made to a locus in quo, evidence of witnesses can be received at the scene or in court later. But the parties in that case, must be given the opportunity of hearing the evidence of the witnesses, and where necessary, be offered the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and commenting on the evidence. Lambu v. Isyakau (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 640) 1295 Pp.1364-1365, paras. F-E; Ejidike v. Obiora (1951) 13 WACA 270; Seismograph Services (Nig.) Ltd. v. Akporovo (1974) 6 SC 119; Seismograph Services (Nig.) Ltd. v. Onokpasa (1972) 1 All NLR 343; Nwizuk v. Eneyok (1953) 14 WACA 354; Maji v. Shafi (1965) NMLR 33; Bello v. Kassim (1969) 1 NMLR 148.
It is expedient that when occasion demands in a land case where the land in question is of a large expanse, the court undertakes such a visit in order to clear any lingering doubts in the mind of the trial court or clear some ambiguities. In such cases, the Court substitutes the eyes for the ears and then resolves any conflict in the evidence as to physical facts. Hence, it is undertaken in order to complement the auditory with the visual. Where a court is of the view that it is necessary to substitute the eye for the ear in the reception of evidence and that such a course will assist in arriving at a right decision, he may carry out an inspection of a locus in quo but it must be constantly borne in mind that proceedings at an inspection form part of the trial and that a visit to the locus cannot justify a relaxation or non-observance of the law of evidence or the rules of practice and procedure. Sanya v. Sauman (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 618) 917; Odiche v. Chibogwu (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 352) 78; Olusanmi v. Oshosona(1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 245) 22; Adeponle v. Ajalebe (1969) 1 All NLR 222; Ukaegbu v. Nwokolo (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194. Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 9