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 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.” However, in Odunlami v. Odunlami (1974) 11 CCHCJ 1719, one tenant in common sold the disputed land to a third party. The purchaser took possession and installed a signboard thereon. The other tenant in common sought a declaration against the vendor claiming that the plaintiff and the vendor were joint owners of the land. He also sought partition against the vendor, and against the second defendant damages for trespass and injunction to restrain him from further trespass. His claim succeeded. Omololu-Thomas J concluded his judgment by saying: “In so far as the sale of the farmland purports to dispose the plaintiffs‟ share as well as the 1st defendants‟, this judgment, in effect, set aside the sale by the 1st defendant of the farmland in dispute to the 2nd defendant … but without prejudicing the 2nd defendant‟s right (if any) to or over that portion of the farmland belonging to the 1st defendant after the land should have been duly partitioned as ordered.” This judgment has received criticisms from scholars such as Prof. Chianu. See Chianu on Law of Trespass to Land and Nuisance at page 31. It is said that joint tenancy goes with four unities under the acronym PITT rule; where „P‟ stands for Possession, „I‟ stands for Interest, „T‟ stands for Title, and the other „T‟ stands for Term or Time. Jus Accrescendi One unpleasant thing about joint tenancy is the rule of jus