locus in quo evidence

Where oral evidence has been given with regards to the existence, none existence or condition of a state of fact which relates to a physical object, the court may require that such object be brought to court for inspection. Where the state of the physical object is one which cannot be produced before the court, then the court may if necessary permits a jury to inspect such property whether moveable or immoveable. The inspection is then evaluated by the court, which uses the evaluation to properly settle any question in dispute. For instance where there is dispute as to whether or not a land is trespassed on, the court may visit the land to carry out inspection and settle the dispute accordingly.

See Section 127 Evidence Act, 2011;Chukwuogor V. Obuora (1987) 2 NSCC 1063 SC

The provision of section 127 of the Evidence Act, does not contemplate a document as a physical object or thing capable of being inspected or required to be produced for inspection under the section. In fact, a document is clearly exempted by the wordings of the provision of the Evidence Act.

See Section 127(1) Evidence Act, 2011.

Where the court visit the locus in quo, the court does not cease to be a court simply because it is on inspection away from its main building. Except where the court visit the locus in quo and adjourns back to its regular place of sitting, then the proceeding regarding the subject matter can be continued in the locus in quoas if it is the regular building of the court. See Section 127(2) Evidence Act, 2011.

Yes, the court is still bound to allow parties to adduce evidence as to what transpired at the locus except where the parties have no evidence to adduce. A court which attends and makes an inspection of the subject matter of a case is expected to take evidence afterwards of whatever transpired at the locus. This is because inspection cannot be separated from evidence as evidence form a vital part of court proceeding before judgment is given. Chukwuogor V. Obuora (1984) 2 NSCC 1063 SC; See Section 127(2) Evidence Act, 2011.

It is true that the court could settle dispute arising from the existence or non-existence of a state of fact relating to a physical object by relying on the oral evidence of the parties in dispute and documentary evidence where necessary. However, the court is a court of justice. In recent times where documents are forged and the oral testimonies of parties to a case are most times not always true, it becomes desirable for the court to apply its visual senses in aid of its sense of hearing. In fact, inspecting and visiting the object or property in dispute is preferred as it forms ‘real evidence’ which is the most satisfactory form of proof. Of course, it is more reliable than the vagaries of ‘I believe’ of an oral testimony. See Briggs V. Briggs (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 228) 128 SC.

Where at the time a court embarks on a visit to the locus, all the parties as well as their witnesses have testified and the sole purpose of the inspection is to clear doubts as to the accuracy of the pieces of evidence at the locus, there would be no need for oath taking or cross examination with regards to the proceedings at the locus in quo. However, the court must keep the record of proceedings or inspection conducted at the locus in quo. See Baba-Iya V. Sikeli (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 968) 508 (at 538).