This was duly granted to them in their joint names. Sometime later when dispute arose between them, the plaintiff applied for another certificate of occupancy over the same land in his sole name, urging that the earlier one be jettisoned. The officials of Ministry of Land resisted this and in this action the plaintiff sought an order of court to compel the officials to do his bidding. His action failed as a deed of release was not executed to that effect. For a letter to revoke a certificate of occupancy to be valid, it must be jointly signed by both parties who must execute a Deed of Release vesting the whole legal estate they both held jointly in one. See generally Chianu on Sale of Land at page 315. 11. Where a party (spouse) argues that he/she is a joint owner in the absence of a document to support his/her claim, he/she must prove, by evidence, direct and substantial contribution to the acquisition of the property. Where there is no evidence of contribution, the claimant spouse gets nothing. In Petttit v. Pettit (1970) A.C. 777, upon petition for divorce, the wife claimed sole ownership of the matrimonial home. The husband claimed joint ownership, asserting that his contribution to the house was mowing the grass and doing some works around the house. The House of Lords held that this did not give him an interest in the house as those are the usual thing a man should do around a home. The Supreme Court also applied this principle in Amadi v. Nwosu [1992] 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) 273. In that case, the appellant‟s husband sold his house which served as matrimonial home and moved to another part of the city. Appellant refused to vacate possession and respondent/purchaser sued her for declaration of title, damages for trespass and injunction. Appellant could not support