classic exposition of the rule which has been reproduced and followed in countless Nigerian decisions is the following statement of Lord Cranworth in the case. He stated thus: “If a stranger begins to build on my land supposing it to be his own and I perceiving his mistake, abstain from setting him right, and leave him to persevere in his error, a court of equity will not allow me afterwards to assert my title to the land in which he has expended money on the supposition that the land was his own. It considers that when I saw the mistake into which he had fallen, it was my duty to be active and to state my adverse title, and that it would be dishonest in me to remain willfully passive on such an occasion in order afterwards to profit by the mistake which I might have prevented. But it will be observed that to raise such an equity, two things are required, first, that the person expending his money supposes himself to be building on his own land, and secondly that the real owner at the time of the expenditure knows that the land belong to him and not to the person expending his money in the belief that he is the owner. For if a stranger builds on my land knowing it to be mine, there is no principle of equity which will prevent my claiming the land with the benefit of all the expenditure made on it. There would be nothing in my conduct, active or passive, making it inequitable in me to assert my own right.” The above principle was later re-formulated in a more accurate detail by Fry J in Willmott v. Barber (1880) 15 Ch. D 96, 105-106, the court laid down five requirements/ingredients that the improver must prove in order to defeat the title of the owner. It is important to mention that the five requirements/elements/ingredients are cumulative. Failure to prove one