binding. See BOURGI COMPANY LTD V WITHAMS H/V & ANOR (2002 2008) 2 GLR 380. This being the case, the issue that remains unresolved in this case and which in my view ought to be resolved for so many reasons including bringing stability into the matrimonial home, although the couple may be divorced, such a determination would ascertain and lay to rest the issue of the ownership of the property in issue. It is further in my considered view absolutely important for such a determination to be made for public policy reasons as well. Having said this, it has already been clearly established that the Appellant had contributed significantly to the construction and expansion of the matrimonial home herein on the basis of all the evidence that she had adduced in proving this assertion which has already been accepted by the trial court and which I have no reason to interfere with; for indeed it is well established by a plethora of cases that appellate courts would not interfere with the findings of facts of a trial court; See the Gambian Supreme Court decision in FATOU BADJIE & 4 ORS V JOSEPH BASSEN (2002 - 2008) 2 GLR 115, cited supra. See also ARMANTI GAMBIA COMPANY Ltd V DHL INTERNATIONAL (Gambia) Ltd (2002 - 2008) 1 GLR 194 which held as follows: “As a general rule the appellate Court does not disturb findings of fact made by a trial court unless it can be demonstrated that the said findings of fact are perverse or are not supported by evidence on record or absurd in that no reasonable tribunal applying itself to the same facts could have reached the same findings.” Having said this and on the other hand, there is no evidence before this Court or at the court below that the Respondent does not own the piece of land upon which the matrimonial home was constructed, what had remained uncertain before the court below CA – JUDGMENT MATTY FAYE V DAWDA JAWARA Page 18