adverse possessor. So, no matter how long a tenant stays on a land, he cannot become the owner. But if the tenant stays without paying continuously for thirteen (13) years, according to the English law, he becomes the owner or a co-owner of his first occupant of the land. Another point to note here is that an adverse possessor who seeks to rely on the statute of limitation is at liberty to combine his period of possession with that of his predecessor-in-title who was also an adverse possessor. In PN Uddoh Trading Co Ltd v. Abere [1996] 8 NWLR (Pt. 467) 479, the defendant coupled his predecessor-in-title‟s six years adverse possession with his own ten years to defeat the plaintiff‟s claim to the land. Similarly, in Ngene v. Igbo [1991] 7 NWLR (Pt. 203) 358, the plaintiff acquired his title in 1977 from a person who has been in possession since 1951. Uwaifo JCA stated that in the eye of the law his possession related back to 1951 since there has not been break in the act of possession. In a nutshell, after the expiration of the statutory time limit, the title of the erstwhile owner extinguishes and the title of the squatter who has been in adverse possession begins to run from the date of his adverse possession; during this period, the erstwhile owner‟s interest gradually wanes or declines and at the end of the period, his interest finally extinct. Suffice to mention that the Statute of Limitations is not concerned with merits. Once the axe falls it falls, and a defendant who is fortunate enough to have acquired the benefits of the Statute of Limitations is entitled, of course, to insist on his strict rights even if the excess is only one day. In Aina v. Jinadu [1992] 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 91, the property in dispute was subject of a mortgaged and the mortgagee was