On the basis of the foregoing, I therefore solidly find and I so hold that the Respondent herein had failed to prove his case beyond a balance of probabilities and so cannot make claims to the construction and extension of the matrimonial property herein. Having so failed to prove his case, I have been wondering and left flabbergasted as to what point the learned trial judge had any basis upon which to apportion the value of the development as between the parties herein in the absence of any cogent and or compelling evidence that the Respondent herein had tendered before the trial court. Upon what yardstick or criteria did the learned trial judge rely upon to make this calculation? It was in my view a mere speculation that led the trial court to arrive at such a determination. There is no gainsaying that a court of law cannot make a determination of any matter on the basis of a mere speculation or mere conjecture and it is trite that any determination in a court of law must be based by a presiding judge on the basis of clear facts and or a claim and cogent and compelling evidence in support of that claim or case as the case may be. In the Gambian Supreme Court case of MANSONG DAMBELL & ANOR V WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATION COUNCIL – SC Civil Appeal No. 6/2004 judgment of Niki Tobi JSC dated 3rd July 2008, the Supreme Court had this to say about a Court speculating: “There are questions galore but I can stop here in the belief that I have made the point that the learned trial judge was merely involved in speculation, a power which he does not possess. The judge that he is. A judge qua judex is an exact human being and he deals with facts in cases with all exactitude or exactness. The learned trial judge with all respect threw overboard this important nature of his function and went into speculation or conjecture clearly CA – JUDGMENT MATTY FAYE V DAWDA JAWARA Page 15