claim. The husband was estopped from contesting the respondent‟s title after he had executed the document as merely a witness to her signature. The court also applied the quicquid rule to defeat the husband‟s claim that he built on the land. 5. Where a husband buys property with his funds but with the name of his wife, there is a presumption that he is gifting the property to his wife. This is called presumption of advancement. The onus is on the husband to convince the court that his intent is to keep the title over the property notwithstanding that it is in the name of the wife. Where the husband fails to convince the court on this point, the property goes to the wife. In Ramanchandani v. Ekpeyong (1975) NSCC 269, the plaintiff got married to an Indian man in 1948; the marriage was dissolved in 1961. Between 1954 and 1957 two buildings were erected on a parcel of land which was conveyed in plaintiff‟s name. Upon the man‟s death, the defendant claimed it on the ground that his kinsman assigned the buildings to him. The plaintiff insisted that the buildings were built for her “at the height of their love as husband and wife.” As defendant was unable to aver facts to rebut plaintiff‟s claim, the Supreme Court gave her judgment. The Court per Elias CJN stated inter alia: “…Even if the husband had supplied the money with which the buildings were erected thereon, we would be prepared to hold that there is a presumption of advancement in her favour so long as the two buildings were put up during the subsistence of the marriage.” In Mueller v. Mueller [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt. 977) 627, the parties were husband and wife; the husband a German and the wife a Nigerian. They met in the hotel where the husband lodged at the time the wife was a cleaner in the hotel. The husband