equitable principle of standing-by to be invoked against them, nor do I consider that the period of two years within which they made attempts, before going to court, to cajole the defendant into returning the land to the family an unreasonable long period for one to conclude that they had acquiesced to the defendant’s adverse possession.” Where however the improver knows of his lack of title to the land but proceeded to improve the land, the landowner is under no legal obligation to take positive steps to stop him from proceeding in his expenditure of money. In Solomon v. Mogaji (1982) NSCC 400, the landowners knew of the improver‟s mistake and warned him several times. The improver dismissed the warning and proceeded to put up a large house on the land. The Supreme Court (per Bello CJN dissenting) held that after the warnings, the landowners were under no obligation to take positive step to stop the improver. The latter‟s plea of laches and acquiescence failed. 5. The land owner’s silence must have encouraged the improver to spend money on the land. An easy way of showing that the landowner did not encourage the improver in any manner is proof of warning to the improver. In Solagbade v. Ayankoya [1962] WNLR 85, during the five years the improver was on the land, there were protests from the landowners and notice was posted on the land. The landowners were held not to have encouraged the improver. It is important to mention that it is not just enough to prove that the landowner protested, the court equally considers the weight of the protest. Thus, in Ozokpo v. Paul [1990] 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 494, the landowner protested by pouring libation on the disputed land. The court per Omosun JCA had no difficulty holding that this protest was valueless and ineffectual. “Dead