Appellant has done some works on the tiling on the property. The Respondent avers that he travelled to the USA in the year 2000 and was sending the Appellant an allowance every month. The Respondent also conceded that whilst in the USA, the Applicant had informed him that she wanted to extend the master bedroom and widen the veranda because their son was older and needed more space, but that he told her that he would do the work on his return from the USA, but because of her persistence, he finally agreed to allow her to proceed with the said works on the matrimonial home. The Respondent avers that he financed these works because at the time he was working for Delta Airlines at the Airport and was able to remit monies to the Appellant periodically to finance these works. I must however say as at this point that the Respondent has not provided any evidence of the remittances he claims to have been sending to the Appellant or any evidence that he worked with Delta Airlines in the USA. The Respondent further avers that he has had no understanding of any sort with the Appellant that the property in question was to be their joint matrimonial home. That when he returned from the USA in 2007, all the construction works were now complete and as he had started encountering marital problems with the Appellant, he filed for divorce which he obtained on the 17th of August 2010. The Respondent avers that he tried to get the Appellant to leave the matrimonial home, but she had refused. That the Appellant has a property in Tallinding which she had started to develop and the receipts exhibited by the Appellant were purchases of building materials toward that project and those materials were not for the construction of the matrimonial house at Kanifing East Layout. The Respondent avers that the Appellant has no rights over his property and ought not to live there anymore. He therefore sought from the Kanifing Magistrates' Court for an eviction order from the said property. CA – JUDGMENT MATTY FAYE V DAWDA JAWARA Page 7