a proper manner. Neither can turn out the other; but if one of them should take more than his proper share the injured can bring an action for an account. If one of them should go so far as to oust the other he is guilty of trespass.” 9. Where a land is bought by one spouse and developed by the other, if there is evidence that they both contributed to the acquisition and development of the property, the court presumes joint tenancy in equity. In Coker v. Coker (1964) LLR 188, the plaintiff and the defendant were husband and wife before the marriage was dissolved. The matrimonial home was built jointly by them on a piece of land which was gifted to the wife by her father. The husband bought a booklet of a sweepstake and caused some of the tickets to be made out in his name and some in his wife‟s. A ticket purchased in the wife‟s name won a pricely sum and a substantial portion thereof was applied towards the building of the matrimonial home. The building plan was in their joint names. It was held that the man and the wife owned the housed jointly and equally. The wife‟s ownership of the land was no doubt both a direct and substantial contribution to the acquisition of the house. 10. Where a husband acquires a title to land with his sole funds but the document is made out in the joint name of both the husband and his wife, the presumption is that they both acquire the property and hold it in joint tenancy. The fact that the name of the other spouse is inserted into the document makes her a co-owner and would acquire an equal interest in the property. This principle was given judicial affirmation in Otti v. Att. Gen Plateau State (1985) HCNLR 787, the plaintiff (husband and a medical practitioner) and the 2nd defendant (a housewife) applied for a right of occupancy.