The respondent claimed the building in dispute to be a partnership property. The appellant admitted that it that it had been a partnership property but that it later because his personal property by virtue of a dissolution of the partnership agreement as from 3rd September, 1968. From the pleadings of the parties, the law relating to the burden of proof is straight-forward. Having admitted the building to be a partnership property, the onus was on the appellant to prove when it ceased to be a partnership property and became his own. The trial judge, quite rightly in my view, found the appellant woefully failed to discharge the burden of proof. in the circumstances the trial Judge was wrong in dismissing the respondent’s claim and the Court of Appeal rightly set aside the decision of the trial judge and entered judgment for the respondent.