plaintiff‟s claim. Restitution If the quic quid rule is black and proprietary estoppel is white, restitution is the middle ground grey. Restitution comes from the root word “restore” The doctrine of proprietary estoppel was designed to meet the „all-or-nothing‟ result of the quicquid rule. A rigid application of the doctrine may also yield the same „all-or-nothing‟ result. The answer lies in a principle that would ensure the sharing of the benefit of the land in its developed state between the landowner and the innocent developer. This is the doctrine of restitution. It is possible that the improver of land is unable to prove the five (5) requirements equity sets down. For example, he may be unable to prove that the owner knew of his interest in the land. An improver who proves that he acted in ignorance and in good faith but is unable to establish the five elements should not be made to lose his investment on the land but can urge the court to bend backwards to mitigate his hardship. Equity says that if the improver's hands are clean, acted in good faith, expended money on the land, and the money expended inured in the benefit of the landowner, equity assist the improver by making an order that ensures that the land owner does not reap from the ignorance of the improver; that the improver does not lose everything after acting bona fide. It is important to mention that there is no end to what court may order by way of restitution. It may order that the land owner sells the land to the improver or order the land owner to pay for the improvement and retain the land; or order the improver to stay on the land for a limited period of years. In Amoo v. Ebimpejo (1979) 1-3 CCHCJ 224, the improver entered possession through a sale by a charlatan, it was held