ADEPONLE V. AJALEBE & ANOR.

• Pages: 194-197

194



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES [1969] N.S.C.C.

ADEPONLE V. AJALEBE & ANOR.

SIMEON A. ADEPONLE



APPELLANT

V

1.

MADAM BINTU ADUKE AJALEBE

(Substituted by Order of



RESPONDENTS

Court dated 7/12/64)

2.

MADAM RALIATU OMOLARA

SUIT NO. SC 233/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

25th April, 1969.

Civil Action - Practice and Procedure - Land - Irregular inspection of locus in

quo.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a visit to the

locus in quo forms part of the proceedings at a trial.



25

2.

What is the object of a visit to the

locus in quo.

FACTS:

The plaintiff brought an action for a declaration of title and damages for tres-

pass and an injunction restraining the defendants from further acts of trespass.

The plaintiff traced his root of title to the Oloto Chieftaincy Family, while defend-



30

ant traced her title to Oloto Olowo. On the evidence before it the High Court dis-

missed the plaintiff's claim. He appealed.

HELD:

1.

If a Judge is of the view that it is necessary to substitute the eye for the ear in

the reception a' evidence and that such a course will assist in arriving at a



35

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.

2.

In this case, the object was not to view the

locus

so as to appreciate better the



40

oral evidence already given at the trial. Anyone reading the notes would see

the Judge must have himself subjected a number of persons to questioning on

various aspects of the case, without any indication that the parties agreed to

this course.

3.

In arriving at his decision, he was greatly influenced by what he heard and saw



45

when he visited the

locus

but as the proceedings at the

locus

were irregular,

the case must be remitted for retrial

de novo.

Chief Coker for the Appellant.

Oluwa

for the Respondents.



50

MADARIKAN, J.S.C. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court): The appellant in

this appeal was the plaintiff in the Lagos High Court (Suit No.LD/110/64) where his

writ of summons was endorsed as follows:-

5

10

15

20