“The Court shall have power to give any judgment and make any order that ought to have been made, and to make such further or other order as the case may require including any order as to cost. These powers may be exercised by the Court, notwithstanding that the appellant may have asked that part only of a decision may be reversed or varied, and may also be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have appealed from or complained of the decision.” It is therefore on the basis of all the foregoing and the powers vested on this Court that I hold that the parties be jointly entitled to the property in a 50 – 50% share ownership. That is each of the parties owns an equal share to the other of the matrimonial property situated at Kanifing East Layout. They are to peacefully live and coexist there with their children as the family home for the duration of their lifetime and that of their children. I therefore set aside the order of the learned trial judge which held that each of the parties is entitled to one half share of the value of the development. I also set aside the order of the sum of D152, 773 being the share of the Appellant awarded by the trial court, she now being entitled to one half share or 50% of the value of the joint matrimonial home situated at Kanifing East Layout whatever the current value may be. CA – JUDGMENT MATTY FAYE V DAWDA JAWARA Page 21