Nigerian courts more often than not share property in a marriage to the benefit of men, who usually have higher income. This is because the court insists on contribution as the basis for division. The court has decided that direct financial contribution to the purchase price of a matrimonial home or to the repayment of the mortgage must be proved before joint property can be inferred (Essien v. Essien (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 306, 331-332), where the Court of Appeal restated the decision of the Supreme Court in Adaku Amadi v. Edward Nwosu (1992) 6 SCNJ 59). The court accordingly refused the appellant's case on the basis that she did not prove contribution. In Oghoyone v Oghoyone (see Question 5), the court held that the respondent was entitled to joint interest because both parties contributed to the property. Contribution by a party does not necessarily have to be in the nature of a cash outlay for the purchase or development of the property. For example, contribution can be by way of moral and/or financial contribution to the business of the other party where the property is acquired with the profits of the business (Ibeabuchi v. Ibeabuchi (2016) LPELR-41268). Given the discretionary powers of the court under the law, it is suggested that contribution should not be the major consideration. The attitude of the court will do injustice in many cases against the intention of section 72 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. For example, a party may have been taking care of the children's food or school fees when the property was acquired by the other. This has resulted in a situation where parties who have properties abroad prefer to petition for the division of assets in countries where the courts are more favourable to women.