title is declared in a party‟s favour and perpetual injunction is granted, it follows that the house or other improvements on it go to the victor. In effect, a declaration that the improvements on the land belong to the victor is unnecessary; it goes without saying with the application of the principle of maxim “quicquid plantatur solo solo cedit” that the improvements on the land belong to the original title holder. Thus, in Dantsoho v. Mohammed [2003] 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 457, at first instance, the judge after finding that the plaintiff had title to the land, directed that the defendant should remove his building from the land within three months. The Supreme Court denounced him as the defendant did not ask for this consequential order. The Court granted plaintiff's claim for injunction and directed that since he had title, everything that acceded to the land belong to him by the operation of the quic quid rule. Where title is declared in a party’s favour, a loser is not permitted to demolish the house he has built on the land The law is that where a person destroys building or crops on a reasonable believe that the land upon which the building is erected or the crops grown is his, he can take advantage of the defence of bona-fide claim of right upon a charge of malicious damage to property. Where however title has been declared in favour of the opposing party, the improvements automatically become that of the victor and any damage done thereafter can be interpreted as malicious damage to property. In Ezeani v. Njidike (1965) NMLR 95 SC, the plaintiff built a house on a land which the court later declared to belong to the defendants. After the judgment, the defendants permitted the plaintiff to continue in possession of the house for five years