5

THE PURPOSE OF VISITING LOCUS IN

QUO WHEN ADJUDICATING

LAND MATTERS.
10

Presentation by Hon. Lady Justice Immaculate Busingye Byaruhanga, Judge

of the High Court- Land Division.

15

20

25 CONTENTS:

1
 1. Overview/ Introduction
2. Law Applicable
3. Purpose of conducting Locus in quo
4. Key Principles to take into account before conducting a locus in quo
30 visit
5. Procedure to be followed when conducting locus in quo visits.
6. Conclusion

OVERVIEW/ INTRODUCTION

The term “locus” is a Latin word to mean place or position where something
35 is done or exists. Simply put, “locus in quo” is a place where a cause of
action arose. Innumerable authorities have discussed the importance of
visiting locus in quo particularly in land cases in the Ugandan Jurisdiction.

Visiting locus in quo gives the Judicial Officer the opportunity to see where
the cause of action arose as well as the physical state of the suit land, the
40 neighbours, boundary marks among others all of which can help a Judicial
Officer to have a better informed opinion before he or she reaches their
decision.

LAW APPLICABLE

Whereas, it is not mandatory for a Judicial Officer to visit locus in quo, more
45 times than one, injustice has been occasioned to parties when locus visits
are not conducted. This is why, the Former Chief Justice Hon. Justice B. J
Odoki directed in Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007 under Paragraph 3
that judicial officers, when hearing land disputes, should take a keen interest
in visiting locus in quo.

50 The concept of visiting locus in quo has not be codified by Parliament.

However, save for Practice Direction No 1 of 2007 all the Courts of record
(Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court) have delivered numerous
decisions that have illuminated the significance of visiting locus in quo. Some

2
 of these cases include Bongole Geofrey & ors versus Agnes Nakiwala C.A.C.A
55 No. 76 of 2015, Nsibambi versus Nankya (1980) HCB No. 81, Fernandes
versus Noroniha (1969) EA 506, De Souza versus Uganda (1967) EA 784,
Yeseri Waibi versus Edisa Byandala (1982) HCB 28 among others.

PURPOSE OF VISITING LOCUS IN QUO

Visiting locus in quo affords court an opportunity to check on the evidence

60 already adduced in court by the witnesses particularly on the physical state
of the subject matter. Secondly, Locus visits also help court to harness the
physical aspects of the evidence so as to enhance the oral testimonies. This
means that the witnesses’ testimonies at the locus visit are only restricted to
what they testified in court or in their affidavits. Basically visiting locus helps
65 court to better understand the evidence adduced by the witnessed.

KEY PRINCIPLES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN CONDUCTING A

LOCUS IN QUO VISIT

 It is very important to note that the practice of visiting the locus in

quo is to check on the evidence given by the witnesses, and not to
70 fill gaps in their evidence for them. Court may run the risk
of turning itself into a witness in the case (See , De Souza v.
Uganda [1967] EA 784, at 787 first paragraph, Yeseri Waibi v. Edisa
Byandala [1982] HCB 28 and Nsibambi v. Nankya [1980] HCB 81).In
De souza versu Uganda(Supra) Sir Udo Udoma at page 787 states
75 as follows;
“In the present case, it would have been perfectly in order for
the learned trial magistrate at the close of the case for the
defence and before reserving his judgment to have decided to
view the locus in quo and to check on the evidence already given
80 by witnesses and to make note of what witnesses who had
already given evidence might point out to him, in which case he
would of course remind them of their oath. Thereafter he would
have been perfectly entitled to invite the independent witness

3
 whom he called to come to court and testify on oath as to what
85 he knew about the case. It would have been proper thereafter for
him to reserve his judgment”.

 As a matter practice, if court decides to visit locus, the visit should be

scheduled after the closure of both parties’ cases and before counsel
90 make final submissions. This is because court has the ability to
establish whether a locus visit should be conducted just from studying
the pleadings and the evidence on record. (See Norah Owaraga versus
Silver Adowa Owaraga H.C.M.L No. 340 of 2022). According to the case
of De Souza versus Uganda (1967) E.A 784, Sir Udo Udoma held
95 that; it was irregular for the magistrate, after having concluded a trial
and reserved judgment to a stated date, to visit the locus in quo and
thereafter to call a witness.

 Court should only consider the evidence of the witnesses that adduced
100 evidence while in court. Furthermore, the witnesses are only restricted
to the pleaded facts and what they said while in court. Reference is
made to the case of Yeseri Waibi versus Ediisa Lusi Byandala
(1982) HCB p.28 at p.30 where Justice Manyindo held as follows;

105 “In the instance case, the trial magistrate should have
ignored the “massive show of hands” by the people at the
locus in quo since they were not witnesses in the case. He
misdirected himself on this issue and erred in law in taking
it into account. However, the error did not occasion a
110 miscarriage of justice since the magistrate mentioned the
point after he had come to the conclusion that the
respondent had easily proved her claim against the
appellant on the evidence that had been given by the
respondent’s witnesses in court”.

4
115
 During locus visits the witnesses called must always be reminded that
they are still on oath.

PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED WHEN CONDUCTING LOCUS IN QUO

120 VISITS

It is important to note that while visiting locus in quo, the court is still in
session and as such the rules of Civil Procedure apply. According to
Paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction No.1 of 2007, while visiting locus in
quo, the judicial officer should do the following;

125 a. Ensure that all the parties, their witnesses and Advocates (if any) are
present. See the judgment of Justice Odoki in the case of James
Nsibambi versus Lovinsa Hankya (1980) HCB p.81
b. The parties and their witnesses should be allowed to adduce evidence
at the locus in quo.
130 c. The judicial officer should allow cross examination by either party or
his or her counsel.
d. All the proceedings at locus in quo must be recorded as they form part
of the record of proceedings. According to the case of Fernandes
versus Noronha (1969) E.A, p.506 at 508, Justice Duffus, V.-P; in
135 his lead judgment sated that;
“I would mention here that it appears from the record that the
judge, although reluctantly, did the locus in quo, but
unfortunately there is no report of his visit on the record
although this is mentioned in his judgment. The judge does not
140 in this case appear to have relied on any of his own observations,
but in cases where the court finds it expedient to visit a locus in
quo, the court should make note of what took place during the
visit in its record and this note should be either agreed to by the
advocates or at least read out to them, and if a witness points
145 out any place or demonstrates any movement to the court, then

5
 this witness should be recalled by the court and give evidence of
what occurred”.
e. The Judicial Officer must record any observations, views, opinions or
conclusions of the Court including drawing a sketch plan and where
150 necessary take photos of the suit land. With advanced technology, GPS
machines could be used to locate all the features, distance, size and
time.

Regarding making conclusions and putting down notes see the case of
Nsibambi versus Hankya (Supra).

155 CONCLUSION

Visiting locus in quo is very crucial when adjudicating land cases and the
same should be done seriously so as to meet the ends of Justice. However,
an assessment has to be made before a decision to visit locus is made. Some
issues are purely legal and do not require visiting locus. For instance, parties
160 arguing about registration on a certificate of title. Their case is not about
boundaries or trespass for that matter.

Thank you for listening to me.