repaid by the wife out of her money at a time her husband was on war service. The wife provided all the furniture for the home out of her own resources. When subsequently, the husband left the wife and the house was sold, the proceeds was shared equally between them on a summons under Section 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1881 (U.K.). This was because it was not possible fairly to assess the separate beneficial interests of the husband and wife by reference to their contributions to the purchase of the house.” See also the Nigerian Supreme Court decision in ADAKA AMADI V EDWARD N. NWOSU (1992) LPELR – 442 (SC); (1992) 6 SCNJ 59. It is therefore on the basis of all the foregoing that I resolve the sole ground of appeal filed herein in favour of the Appellant. ISSUE NO. 3: HOW IS THE EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT TO BE DETERMINED BY THIS COURT: In determining this issue, let me reiterate that the first two issues for determination having already been resolved in favour of the Appellant herein; let me also say briefly and for purposes of emphasis that the learned trial judge has for valid reasons already found and held that the Appellant herein had acquired a beneficial interest in the property thus making the property a joint property and further that the Appellant was entitled to a share in the property on the basis of her beneficial interest in the matrimonial home. These findings and holdings of the learned trial judge have not been appealed against and as such it is trite law that the part of the judgment that is not appealed against remains valid, subsisting and CA – JUDGMENT MATTY FAYE V DAWDA JAWARA Page 17