commonest form of joint interest is husband and wife. Whether the concurrent interest is joint tenancy or tenancy in common, on thing is certain, possession in joint. In joint tenancy, one co-owner cannot sue the other in trespass. Thus, in Kuri v. Kuri (1923) 4 NLR 78, the three parties in court were siblings. Two of them, John and Rotus, acquired leasehold of a two-floor building in their joint name but the third, Moses, was permitted to reside in the house by Rotus. Differences arose between John and Moses which prompted John to sue for recovery of possession from Moses; the court ordered Rotus to be joined as a nominal co-plaintiff. Rotus testified in favour of Moses indicating that he was inclined to have him remain in possession. Green J dismissed the plaintiff‟s claim saying: “John and Rotus are joint tenants. Each has an equal control over the whole house, and in view of the attitude of Rotus it is impossible to say that John can ignore his wishes and Eject Moses who is there with Rotus‟ consent and approval. The tenancy as proved is a joint one and has not been severed, and it is impossible in these proceedings to say that John has control over the second floor and Rotus over the first or vice versa. Each has an undivided control over the whole.” 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