This document summarizes the differences between a pre-trial locus visit and a post-trial locus visit in a legal case. A pre-trial locus visit is not considered evidence and helps the court understand the status of the land in dispute before hearing testimony. The post-trial locus visit map in this case showed the location of the disputed land and surrounding buildings and landmarks, consistent with the trial testimony. The court found that the locus visit was conducted properly and did not provide any improper evidence beyond what was already part of the trial record.
This document summarizes the differences between a pre-trial locus visit and a post-trial locus visit in a legal case. A pre-trial locus visit is not considered evidence and helps the court understand the status of the land in dispute before hearing testimony. The post-trial locus visit map in this case showed the location of the disputed land and surrounding buildings and landmarks, consistent with the trial testimony. The court found that the locus visit was conducted properly and did not provide any improper evidence beyond what was already part of the trial record.
Original Description:
Original Title
Pre-trial Locus Visit Distinguished From Post Trial Locus Visit
This document summarizes the differences between a pre-trial locus visit and a post-trial locus visit in a legal case. A pre-trial locus visit is not considered evidence and helps the court understand the status of the land in dispute before hearing testimony. The post-trial locus visit map in this case showed the location of the disputed land and surrounding buildings and landmarks, consistent with the trial testimony. The court found that the locus visit was conducted properly and did not provide any improper evidence beyond what was already part of the trial record.
This document summarizes the differences between a pre-trial locus visit and a post-trial locus visit in a legal case. A pre-trial locus visit is not considered evidence and helps the court understand the status of the land in dispute before hearing testimony. The post-trial locus visit map in this case showed the location of the disputed land and surrounding buildings and landmarks, consistent with the trial testimony. The court found that the locus visit was conducted properly and did not provide any improper evidence beyond what was already part of the trial record.
Pre-trial locus visit distinguished from Post trial
locus visit.
“…Similarly, Learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot
allege that other happenings occurred at the locus in quo beyond what was captured on record, in the absence of proof. It appears the Appellant’s counsel, with respect, is mixing the notes of the trial Court taken at the pre-hearing locus visit, which is not evidence, with that taken at the locus visit, in my view, is not a judicial hearing, as it happens before witnesses are sworn and heard in court. Pre-hearing locus visit merely helps Court to appreciate the status quo of the suit land before the hearing. This Court understands that this is now guided by the rules of this Court, as amended in the year 2019. See O. 11A rule 3(2) of CPR, as amended. Adverting to the map drawn at the post trial locus visit, I find that it encompasses what the defense had testified about in Court. Significantly, it shows the location of the suit land, as being in Lumoi trading centre, and not elsewhere. It also shows the trading centre buildings without necessarily naming who owns what building.
VISIT OUR WEBSITE
Follow us: www.ldc.ac.ug From the Padyer stream in the South towards Kalongo- Lumoi Road, but before reaching Lumoi trading centre, lies in the home of the two Respondent’s son (the record does not specify which of the two Respondents), a grave of the Respondent’s Nephew (the exact Respondent is not stated). The locus map also shows the home of the Appellant, but sandwiched from the suit land. I note that the trial Court did not rely on the stated features at the locus in quo (son’s home, grave, and the plaintiff’s/appellant’s home) in its Judgment. In the circumstances, I find that the alleged improper conduct of the proceedings at the locus in quo and the alleged importation of material in evidence, not made out. In any case, no material is shown to have informed the decision of the trial Court, beyond that on record. The locus conduct, in my view, complied with the Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007, and case law on the subject. See Alimarina Okot & 4 Others vs. Lamoo Hellen, High Court Civil Appeal No. 026 of 2018, (Stephen Mubiru, J); David Acar & 3 Others vs Alfred Acar Aliro (1982) HCB 60, Bongole Geoffrey & 4 Others Vs. Agnes Nakiwala, Civil Appeal No. 0076 of 2015 (Court of Appeal)...”
OWON AKWILINO OKONGO VERSUS OMARA YOSAM AND
ANOR. HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2020 Judgment by George Okello, J on April 24, 2023