the developments on the property. See pages 143 and 144 of the record where it is held thus: “From the totality of the evidence, notwithstanding the contradictions of the Applicant concerning her claim that she bought materials for the property in 2010 when the Respondent has already filed for divorce and her evidence concerning her property in Tallinding as indicated in the preceding paragraph, I believe the Applicant has satisfied the evidential burden of proof to shift the burden to the Respondent to prove that it was he who paid for all the developments on the property. The Respondent has stated that he was working in the USA and sent money to the Applicant and particularly for the extension works on the property. He however did not produce any documentary evidence whatsoever on his income or the transfer of money to the Applicant. On the preponderance of evidence and taking into consideration that the parties were a married couple and cohabiting, and the evidence that the Applicant contributed her own moneys towards the Respondent travelling to USA; on the education of the children and on the payment of bills, I accept that the Applicant also expended her own moneys on the development of the property which going by the extent of the works that were carried out on the house, amounts to a substantial contribution. Having said this, I also believe that the Respondent contributed towards the works carried out on the property when the Applicant was residing in Gloucester Street at the time she was moving into the house and also to the extension of the property when he CA – JUDGMENT MATTY FAYE V DAWDA JAWARA Page 10