By Bwala Stephen Amos

During the duration of a trial whether civil or criminal, evidences are presented before the judge, be it documentary evidence, real evidence or physical evidence. Often times, these evidences maybe contradictory, leaving the judge to wonder which is true. The best way of resolving and putting this problem to rest is through a visit to the locus in quo. The concept of locus in quo is a fundamental legal principle that plays a crucial role in Nigerian jurisprudence. It refers to the specific place or location where a legal issue arises or where a cause of action occurs and what better place to ascertain the veracity of evidences than the original source?

Locus in quo is a Latin phrase which literally means “the place in which”. The Black’s Law Dictionary [1]defined Locus in quo as:

“The place in which the cause of action arose, or where anything is alleged, in pleadings, to have been done.”

Unarguably, a visit to the locus in quo clarifies any ambiguities or discrepancies in the evidence presented by witnesses. Locus in quo is applicable to both civil and criminal trials. It is as defined, the place where the subject matter of the proceedings arose and it can be a place, a land, property or any object which has relevance to the proceedings at hand. Whenever it is a property or object, it must be of such nature that it can’t be taken to courtroom for observation or admission as an exhibit.

PURPOSE

It is imperative to know that a visit to the locus in quo gives the judge an opportunity to see and examine the said objects of proceedings for himself (see Hyun Sung Hydraulic Machinery Co. Ltd v. Hassan Jafar[2]). Secondly, the visit to the locus in quo clears any doubt in the mind of the judge, such that where there is a conflict between the evidence of the plaintiff and that of the defendant as to the existence or non-existence of a physical feature on the subject matter of the proceedings, a visit to the locus in quo will certainly clear that doubt and reveal the truth.

As rightly held in Orugbo & Anor v. Bulara Una & Ors[3], the ultimate purpose of a visit to the locus in quo is to bring out evidence of parties without bias. The court held as follows:

“The major essence of inspection of locus in quo is to bring to the fore the evidence of both parties without bias. It is a forum to allow parties to show the court important boundaries and land marks to enable the court decide the issue(s) in dispute.

Visits to the locus in quo are not to be undertaken carelessly or for the mere fun of it. There must be two opposing evidences from both parties which such proposed visit will set the record straight. On when a visit to the locus in quo is necessary, the court held in Okwara v. Okwara[4]:

“In a land dispute where it is manifest that there is a conflict in the survey plans and evidence of the parties as to the identity of the land in dispute, the only way to resolve the conflict is for the trial court to visit the locus in quo” (p.171, paras. G-H)

Needless to say, a visit to the locus in quo may not be necessary where the disputed area is clear, as a trial Court can easily reach its decision when the evidences are clear.

Certainly, the purpose of a visit to the locus in quo is not to raise new issues but to enable the court to “see with eyes what it heard with ears” per Ubaezoni in Christian Nwosu v. Titus Mbadugha 2000 1 NWLR (pt. 641) where the court held:

“The purpose of locus in quo is to enable the court to see (with its eyes) whether what it heard (with its ears) was true or false”.

However, such visit must be in respect of evidence already before the court. It can be undertaken at any stage before delivering judgement. However, it must be essential and material for the proper determination of the question in dispute.[5]

Other purposes of a visit to the visit to the locus in quo are:

To gain a better understanding of the physical layout or conditions of the place where the incident or event occurred. To obtain a first-hand impression of the relevant surroundings. The court’s observations during the inspection can be considered as part of the evidence in the case. However, it is important to note that the court’s decision should not be based solely on its impressions from the locus in quo but must also consider the overall evidence presented in the case because a visit to the locus in quo is undertaken for the purpose of proper determination of issues before a court as it forms part of evidence before it. (See Emmanuel M. O Chukwuogor v. Richard Obiora[6])

As stated earlier, a visit to the locus-in-quo can be done at any time before judgment is delivered (see Aturu v. The Queen[7]), however, the courts have held that it is better for trial judges to visit the locus as early as possible, and preferably in the course of the evidence for the prosecution (see Aremu v. Attorney-General Western Nigeria[8])

APPLICABLE LAWS

The concept of locus in quo is a fundamental legal principle that plays a crucial role in Nigerian jurisprudence and it is guided by law and has legal backing. The Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) specifically addresses the concept of locus in quo in Section 127. This section empowers the court to visit and inspect the place where any oral evidence points to the existence of any physical thing other than documentary evidence. The court can do so either on its own motion or at the request of either party.

Section 127(1) of the Evidence Act states:

(I) If oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a

document, the court may if it deems fit-

(a) require the production of such material thing for its inspection or

(b) inspect any moveable or immovable property, the inspection of which may be material to the proper determination of the question in dispute.

By virtue of the above sub section, the Court may, in its discretion, inspect any place or thing which it may deem necessary for the purpose of elucidating any fact in issue or of understanding the evidence given in the case[9]. It is pertinent to note that this a discretionary power of the court; it is not mandatory.

Section 127(2) further provides:

(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 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.

By virtue of the above, where a Court visits and makes an inspection of the subject matter of a case, it shall not cease to be a court simply because it is on inspection away from its main building. The court retains its authority to conduct proceedings even while inspecting the locus in quo. It also makes it mandatory for the defendant to be present at such location and for an account of what transpired there to be given in court at the next court sitting.

. In the context of criminal procedure in Nigeria, the locus in quo plays a crucial role in determining the jurisdiction of a court, the applicable laws and procedures, and the gathering of evidence, conducting investigations and conducting court visits, all of which contribute to the effective administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 is explicit in this regard.

Section 263 of ACJA 2015 states:

(1) Where it appears to the court that in the interest of justice, the court should have a view of any place, person or thing connected with the case, the court may, where the view relates to a place, either adjourn the court to that place and there continue the proceedings or adjourn the case and proceed to view the place, person or thing concerned. (2) The defendant shall be present at the viewing of the place, person or thing concerned.

(3) At the locus, the court shall give directions as it may deem fit for the purpose of preventing communication between the witnesses and the defendant.

(4) A breach of a direction given under subsection (3) of this section shall not affect the validity of the proceedings unless the court otherwise directs.

The above provisions allow the court to visit the locus in quo during the trial to gain a firsthand impression of the scene of crime and better understand the evidence presented, which can aid in making a fair and informed decision. It also empowers the court to make rules and directions to prevent communication between the witnesses and the defendant. It is worthy of mention to point out that this provision shares similarity with S.127 of the Evidence Act as it equally mandates that the defendant should be present during the visit to the locus in quo. This similarity is in obeisance to Rules of fair hearing as entrenched in the grundnorm of the land as any trial devoid of fair hearing is a nullity.

The concept of locus in quo is implicitly recognized and applied in several provisions of various laws, particularly those dealing with criminal procedure and evidence admissibility such as the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), Evidence Act, Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

INITIATION AND PROCEDURE

There are certain ways in which a visit to the locus in Quo can be initiated. Firstly, the court can decide Suo motu to undertake a visit to the locus in quo. Alternatively, the parties or their counsel can request a court to embark on a visit to the locus in quo.

While a court could Suo motu undertake a visit to the locus in quo, caution should be exercised before such undertaking. There must be a contradiction and conflict between the evidences of both parties and the court finds itself in such a position in which without supplementing what he has heard with what he can see, he can only accredit one version of the conflict and discredit the other mechanically (see Hyacinth Anyanwu v. Robert Achilike Mbara & Ors[10]).

Furthermore, the period in which the court can commence a visit to the locus in quo spans from the moment evidence have been given in court to any moment before judgement is given. Without evidence before the court, the court can not ascertain whether or not there is a need for a visit to the locus in quo.

The second method of initiation of a visit to the locus in quo is for the parties or their counsel to request the court to undertake a visit to the locus in quo. In this situation, the court can decline such request if it is of the opinion that it is not material or relevant to the just determination of the dispute before it.

The procedure for a visit to the locus in quo is clear. Various Acts /procedural laws recognize the practice and procedure in respect of a visit to the locus in quo.

The procedure as contained in Section 172(2) of the Evidence Act is as follows:

(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 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.

This means that the court shall vacate the court hall and everybody- the judge, court officials, parties, their counsel, witnesses and any other relevant persons move to the scene of the visit and continue the court sitting there. The court hall shall, for all intent and purposes be the scene of the locus in quo. Demonstration to be performed by witnesses, cross examination and comments shall all take place on the scene[11]. The court does not cease to be a court simply because it is sitting in a different place from the regular court hall.[12] The place of visit becomes a temporary court hall for the purpose of the visit.

Section 263 of ACJA 2015 reiterates the same procedure in different wordings[13].

In conclusion, the significance of Locus in quo can never be over emphasized in any trial, be it Civil or Criminal and a visit to the locus in quo is only relevant and necessary when there is a conflict between the evidences of both parties (be it oral, documentary or real evidence). Such visit usually helps the judge to see for himself and put that conflict to rest. It is also pertinent to know that it is the discretionary power of the court which it uses only when it is of the opinion that there is a doubt as to the evidences adduced by both parties or their counsel.

Bwala Stephen Amos 300 level, ABU Zaria 07066334459/amostephen05@gmail.comsss

[1] 11th edition

[2] 2005 All FWLR (pt. 250)

[3] 2002 FWLR (pt. 127)

[4] (1997) 11 NWLR (pt. 527)

[5] See Justice Bukar Bwala: Legal Topics 2nd ed. (2009) at p.167

[6] 1987 3 NWLR (pt.61) 454

[7] (1959) 4 FSC 66

[8] (1967) NMLR 62

[9] mostly oral evidence

[10] 1992 5 NWLR (PT. 242) 386

[11] Justice Bukar Bwala: Legal Topics 2nd ed. (2009) at p.159

[12] Chief Aaron v. Chief Nwaribo Eneyok 14 WACA 354

[13] This writer sees no need to mention the procedure twice

In this article