and before this Court is whether the Respondent has contributed towards the construction of the matrimonial home and to what extent, if at all. There was no evidence whatsoever either on the various affidavits of the parties or even in their oral evidence at the court below. For avoidance of repetition, this has however been resolved supra. However, as the learned trial judge had held that where it was practically impossible to precisely calculate the proportions of a party’s contributions to enable a determination of their respective shares, the equitable principle that equity is equality will be applied. I would on this basis and on the basis of the principle of equity that equity is equality and on the basis of the decision cited and relied upon supra in COKER V COKER (1964) LLR.188 wherein the case of RIMMER V RIMMER (1952) 2 ALL E.R. 863 was referred to and on the basis of the Nigerian Supreme Court decision in ADAKA AMADI V EDWARD N. NWOSU (1992) LPELR – 442 (SC); (1992) 6 SCNJ 59 also referred to supra and further by virtue of Section 43 of the Woman’s Act 2010 which provides as follows: 1) “Every woman shall enjoy equitable right as men in case of separation, divorce annulment of marriage, subject to personal law. 2) A woman has the right to seek separation, divorce or annulment of marriage. 3) In case of separation, divorce or annulment of marriage, a man and a woman have reciprocal rights and responsibilities towards their children and, at all times, the interests of the children shall be given paramount consideration. 4) In the case of separation, divorce or annulment of marriage, a man and a woman have the right to an CA – JUDGMENT MATTY FAYE V DAWDA JAWARA Page 19