await the period of abstinence known as “Idda”. The Appellant also submits that in August 2011, the Respondent locked her out of the property and that she only regained entry into the property when she reported the matter to the Police which led the Respondent to summon her to Kanifing Magistrates' Court on an application to evict her from the property. It is on this basis that the Appellant now seeks to have an equitable share in the matrimonial home. The Appellant contended that it was through her efforts and assistance that the Respondent was able to travel to the USA and the Respondent would send him a US$100 from time to time which amount she spent towards the payment of bills incurred at the matrimonial home. The Appellant averred that upon the Respondent’s return from the USA, he was very sick and she had to take six months to take care of him. That the Respondent’s behaviour subsequently was very unreasonable towards her and he had even locked her out of their matrimonial bedroom. The Respondent claims that he got married to the Appellant in 1985 and that they were divorced in 1987 after having had a son in the marriage and that during this time, they lived in a rented accommodation in Latrikunda. The Respondent also claims that he and the Appellant remarried in 1998 and he was allocated a plot of land at Kanifing East Layout in 1986 where he erected a dwarf fence on all its four sides. The Respondent avers furthers that he obtained a loan from his former employers and started building the house which was completed in 1993. That upon his remarriage with the Appellant, she begged him to let them use the house as their matrimonial home to which he reluctantly agreed to and thus they moved to the house in 1999. It is clear on the Respondent’s affidavit in opposition on record, paragraph 12 thereof that he concedes that it was the Appellant who erected a gate to the property. At paragraphs 13 of the same affidavit in opposition, the Respondent conceded that the CA – JUDGMENT MATTY FAYE V DAWDA JAWARA Page 6