her contention that she had interest in the house with needed evidence. In her evidence-in-chief, she merely said that she paid for labour and sand. She made no effort to substantiate the testimony. Her husband testified that she was not earning money when he built the house. Kutigi JSC stated that the appellant urged that she contributed to the building of the house, if it were so, then certainly, when she came to testify in court, she ought to have explain the quality and quantity of here contributions. She also ought to have given details and particulars of the contributions which would have enabled the court to decide whether or not she owned the property with her husband. Consequently, her appeal failed. The contribution must be direct to the building of the house. An indirect contribution is not recognized. In Gissing v. Gissing (1970) 3 WLR 260; (1971) A.C. 886, Lord Reid said: “It is perfectly true that where a spouse does not make direct payments towards the purchase it is less easy to evaluate her share. If her payments are direct, she gets a share proportionate to what she has paid. Otherwise there must be a more rough and ready evaluation. I agree that this does not mean that as a rule she would get a half share. I think that the high sounding brocard „equality is equity‟ has been misused. There will of course be cases where a half share is reasonable estimation, but there will be many others where a fair estimate might be a tenth or a quarter or sometimes even more than a half. In Nwanya v. Nwanya [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 62) 697, the respondent/wife, in a petition for divorce, claimed she contributed N6,000 to the building of a house which was in her husband‟s name. Her claim was dismissed as she was unable to substantiate her claim. On the vital place of