even by such act as delivering the keys to the landlord. So long as the wife remains on the premises, he remains there by her, and so long as he does so whatever he does or says, the tenancy remains. In Ogedegbe v. Ogedegbe (1964) LLR 209 {Lagos Law Report}, the defendant/husband urged the plaintiff (his wife) out of the house she resided with a view to demolishing and rebuilding it which the wife acceded to. After the reconstruction, the husband let all the apartment to tenants without making provision for his wife. The court in its decision applying section 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act, 1882 (a Statute of General Application), ordered the husband to provide the wife the four rooms he had deprived her of. 8. Most cases of joint tenancy arise informally – that is, the parties do not reduce their intention into writing. If there is evidence that they both contributed to acquiring the property, the court presumes joint tenancy in equity. The effect of this is that both parties enjoy the property and one joint owner cannot sue to recover possession from another See Chianu on Trespass at page 31. In Bull v. Bull (1955) 1 Q.B. 234, the plaintiff and his mother bought a house with plaintiff contributing a larger sum. The conveyance was in his name. When he got married, dispute arose between the two ladies whereupon the plaintiff gave his mother notice to quit and sued her to recover possession of the portion she occupied. His action was dismissed as the court affirmed the principle that one joint owner cannot recover possession from another. Denning LJ stated: “The son is, of course, the legal owner of the house; but the mother and son are equitable tenants in common… Each of them is entitle to the possession of the land and to the use and employment of it in