ISSUES 1 & 2: IS THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE’S CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE EXTENSIONS AND RENOVATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE? AND DID THE RESPONDENT DISCHARGE THE BURDEN THAT SHIFTED ON HIM TO PROVE THAT HE PAID FOR THE COMPLETION RENOVATIONS AND EXTENSIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT ON THE MATRIMONIAL HOME Like the Appellant, I chose to consider issues 1 and 2 together given their relationship. It is the contention of the Appellant that the holding and conclusion of the learned trial judge that the Respondent also contributed to the extensions and renovations carried out on the matrimonial property were not supported by the evidence on record especially after the learned trial judge had held severally to the contrary. The Appellant cited several instances in their brief of argument how the trial judge had held on many instances how and why the Appellant; Applicant therein had satisfied the evidentiary burden of proof to shift the burden of proof on the Respondent to prove that it was he who had paid for all the developments on the property. I seem to agree with the Appellant that the learned trial judge had perhaps made a detour from his findings in his judgment as I see on the record by the evidence adduced therein which were perhaps in conflict with his subsequent holding and conclusion. Given the fact that the learned trial judge after having seen the affidavit evidence filed by both parties and after having heard the oral testimony of both parties during cross examination, drew the conclusion that the Appellant had satisfied the evidential burden of proof to shift the burden on the Respondent to prove that it was he who paid for all CA – JUDGMENT MATTY FAYE V DAWDA JAWARA Page 9