"It is pertinent to point out that a visit to locus in quo is usually necessary where there is conflicting evidence as to the existence or non-existence of physical features on the disputed land which needed to be clarified by the Court. See OLUBODE V SALAMI (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 7) 282, OLUSANMI V OSHASONA (1992) 6 NWLR (PT. 245).

It is trite in law that observations of the Court during visit to locus in quo does not amount to evidence, it however helps the Court to clear any doubt standing in the way of resolving the issues properly. See SEISMOGRAPH SERVICE (NIGERIA) LTD. V AKPORUOVO (1974) 6 SC 111 @ 128."

Per DANJUMA, J.C.A.IN IDIARHI v. POSI & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45033(CA)