evidence, Olatawura JCA said: “If the respondent has given a lump sum to her husband, she should have led evidence in support. If she bought building materials and gave them to her husband, she was duty bound to lead evidence in support. If her monetary contribution was by way of cheque, evidence ought to have been led also.” 12. Where a contribution is direct but not substantial, the court would consider the contribution a capital investment. In which case, the court would order that the contributor gets something more than his/her contribution. In other words, if for example, the total cost of the property is N10m and the wife‟s contribution is N200,000 (insignificant contribution), there is no joint ownership. The court will order that the husband pay off his wife on the assumption that her contribution is a capital investment. In Backhouse v. Backhouse [1978] 1 All E.R. 1158, husband and wife contributed to the purchase of a house. The wife contributed a little over 2000 pounds out of the total cost of some 8000 pounds. After bearing two children the wife left the matrimonial home for another man. In this petition for divorce, the issue turned on what the wife can obtain from the house. The court per Balcombe J awarded her 3,500 pounds on the ground that she was entitled to a share in the capital assets she had helped to create; the increase value of the house should not all go to the husband. The point from the foregoing is that if the wife‟s contribution is direct but not substantial, her modest contribution is considered a capital investment and the court has authority to award her a sum in proportion with her contribution, not the exact sum she contributed. Where a wife makes direct payments towards the purchase of a property but the cost of the building