at what appeared to be nominal rent. At the expiry of the five years, the defendants wrote the plaintiff to “remove from the site you occupy and to remove and pack out all your belongings therefrom.” The plaintiff took this to mean that he could demolish the house and remove the building materials. When the defendants prevented him from removing the building materials, he instituted an action against the defendants and sought an award of damages for conversion against the defendants, but his action failed since the building materials now belong to the defendant by virtue of the quicquid rule. Interlocutory Injunction It is pertinent to mention that the quicquid rule is not an abstract term. As a matter of fact, it applies in many areas of law. For example, the quicquid rule is also useful in application for interlocutory injunction to restrain a builder from continuing to build on a land subject of dispute. The object of interlocutory injunction is to maintain the status quo, not to alter it. The issue of status quo often arises when an applicant seeks to restrain the respondent by interlocutory injunction from erecting a building on land subject of litigation. However, a defendant can use the quicquid rule to defeat the object of an injunction by pleading with the court to allow him continue the building while the proceeding is ongoing since the owner of the land would eventually take everything on the land. This is a risk as the defendant may lose everything if he eventually lose the case at the end of the proceeding. In Okeke-Oba v. Okoye [1994] 8 NWLR (Pt. 364) 605, the appellant obtained an interim order to stop the respondent from continuing on the land pending the hearing of the motion for interlocutory injunction. In