142, supports this position. In that case, the complainant and accused were landlord and tenant. With the landlord‟s consent, the tenant renovated the demised building but shortly thereafter the rent was increased and the tenant opted to vacate the premises. He removed what he considered the fixtures which he installed. The aggrieved landlord got him arrested and charged for malicious damage to property. The trial magistrate made a distinction between fixtures and fittings and convicted the tenant on account that he should have removed only fittings, not fixtures. Aseme J reversed him, saying: “Where the defence of bona-fide claim of right is set up, the question is whether the accused honestly believed himself entitled to the property and not whether he has reasonable grounds for so believing. Such question as to the manner of exercising such right, whether cowardly done or on a rampage, are immaterial consideration provided that the act relates only to the property over which such claim of right extends… Section 23 does not say that the act done or omitted to be done should not be excessive or otherwise.” In the case of Dabierin v. State (1968) 1 All NLR 138, the charge was for theft of undried cocoa seeds and the accused tried unsuccessfully, to convince the trial court that one of their members owned the land where the cocoa was grown. It was by way of an aside that Fakayode J who heard the appeal mentioned that an accused is obliged to prove that his act is reasonable. Setting him straight, the Supreme Court per Brett JSC said: “A claim of right exists whenever a man honestly believes that he has a lawful claim, even though it may be completely unfounded in law or in fact… It is enough if the belief is honestly held and there can be no justification for reading