LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Inspection of Locus in Quo – When Necessary
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In the proceedings on appeal, there is no serious conflict in the evidence of the plaintiffs with that of the defendants as was the case in Seismograph Services (Nig.) Ltd. v. Akporuovo (supra) where the trial Judge was faced with two conflicting evidence as to whether or not the buildings were standing on the land in dispute. There is also no doubt in the evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants which a judicial inspection of the land would clear.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"In the proceedings on appeal, there is no serious conflict in the evidence of the plaintiffs with that of the defendants as was the case in Seismograph Services (Nig.) Ltd. v. Akporuovo (supra) where the trial Judge was faced with two conflicting evidence as to whether or not the buildings were standing on the land in dispute. There is also no doubt in the evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants which a judicial inspection of the land would clear."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Judicial inspection of the locus in quo is necessary when there is serious conflict in evidence that inspection would resolve—e.g., whether buildings exist on disputed land. If there is no serious conflict or the evidence is not in doubt, inspection may be unnecessary. The trial judge has discretion to decide whether inspection is material. The purpose is to understand the evidence, not to gather new evidence. Inspection should not replace proper evidence. The court must not base decision solely on inspection. The parties may accompany the judge. The appellate court reviews whether the trial judge’s failure to inspect caused injustice. Inspection is a tool, not a mandatory step. The court considers whether the conflict is genuine and material.
