was in the USA. I am however unable to find precisely the proportion of their respective contributions.” This conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge is not supported by the evidence on the record of the court below and is at great variance with his finding in the judgment that it was the Appellant who had produced evidence before the trial court of contributions towards the extensions and renovations carried out on the matrimonial home. The trial judge has already held that the Respondent did not adduce any evidence to support his claim of either building or expanding the property in question, how then was he to arrive at such a conclusion. Whilst I agree with the learned trial judge that he may have been unable to find out precisely the exact proportion of their respective contributions, he could not in my view safely hold that the Respondent had made any contributions towards the matrimonial home in the absence of any evidence in support of this proposition. I therefore find and hold that the learned trial judge was in error in arriving at such a conclusion as there was no iota of evidence adduced by the Respondent to this effect save for what the Appellant did not dispute as to what she found on the property when they sought to move into the matrimonial home. I similarly did not find on the record before me that the Respondent had discharged the burden that shifted on him to prove as he asserted that he was the one who had paid for the completion of the renovation and extension works that was carried out by the Appellant on the matrimonial home. The respondent herein has not even proved that he carried out any development on the property itself save for having acquired the piece of land which has not been disputed. It is trite that the burden of proof shifted on the Respondent after the Appellant proved the extent of the works that she had effected on the matrimonial property with numerous pieces of CA – JUDGMENT MATTY FAYE V DAWDA JAWARA Page 11