Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Bisi Akinwale claims ₦30,000 from Kunle Adebayo as unpaid wages for one week when the shop was closed for a stock count. She says Kunle told her not to come in, that she remained available as instructed, and that her pay would continue. Kunle disputes that she was told to stay home on paid standby and says she did no work. Bisi seeks only the one week’s wages. Kunle asks that the claim be dismissed and also requests punitive costs for alleged malicious prosecution. 2. The parties were invited to make final statements. Bisi acknowledged that she has no message or separate witness supporting the alleged instruction or promise. Her final statement relies on her own account and the signed wage agreement. Kunle’s final submission repeats that the claim lacks supporting proof and adds accusations and a request for punitive costs. No new exhibit or independent evidence was presented in the final statements. Issues for determination 3. The issues are: (a) the agreed weekly wage; (b) whether Bisi proved that the disputed week was paid standby rather than unpaid absence; and (c) whether she proved that ₦30,000 remains unpaid. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her request for wages under Rule 1, “The Claim Needs Proof.” Rule 25, “Pay Claims Need Clear Accounting,” directs attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Submissions of the parties 4. Bisi submits that she did not choose to miss work or abandon her job. She says Kunle instructed her to stay home during the stock count and that she understood she should remain available with pay continuing. She relies on the signed agreement for the weekly rate and asks for exactly one week’s pay, without extra damages or costs. She accepts that the agreement does not address closures and that she has no message or separate witness supporting the instruction or promise. 5. Kunle submits that Bisi stayed home and did no work, and that the agreed rate applies to weeks actually worked. He says the attendance record shows “away no pay” and argues that Bisi has no written proof of a standby instruction. The attendance sheet itself was not presented as an exhibit. Kunle also calls the claim baseless and seeks punitive costs, but provides no separate evidence supporting those accusations or a basis for that additional remedy. Evidence and findings 6. The signed agreement is presented as exhibits 3-e1, 5-e1, and 7-e1. These are repeated descriptions of the same agreement, not three independent agreements. The agreement bears both parties’ signatures and states a weekly wage of ₦30,000. It says nothing about temporary closures or standby time. I find the agreed weekly rate established, but the agreement does not by itself prove that wages were payable during the stock-count week. 7. Bisi’s submissions consistently state that Kunle told her to stay home and that she understood pay would continue. Her account is direct evidence of what she says happened, and I have considered it rather than treating it as no evidence. But she expressly acknowledges that she has no message or separate witness supporting the instruction or promise. Kunle disputes the account. The record contains no presented schedule, policy, pay record, or other independent evidence resolving that conflict. 8. Kunle describes an official attendance sheet recording Bisi as away and unpaid. Because the sheet was not presented, I cannot inspect or treat it as an admitted exhibit. Even accepting the description for the limited purpose of assessing the parties’ arguments, an entry of absence and no pay would not establish why Bisi was away or whether she had been instructed to remain available. It therefore does not independently prove Kunle’s account about the reason for the absence. The uncertainty remains, but the burden to prove entitlement to the claimed wages rests on Bisi. Reasons 9. On the agreed wage issue, Bisi has met her burden. The signed agreement is specific and supports the amount of ₦30,000 per week. This finding does not decide whether every week, including a closure week, was payable. 10. On paid standby, Bisi has not met her burden. Her account is consistent across her submissions, and the absence of a message or witness does not automatically make it false. However, the agreement is silent on standby, Kunle disputes the alleged instruction, and no independent record or witness supports Bisi’s understanding that pay would continue. Rule 2, “Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories,” favors reliable records where available, but the described attendance entry is not before the Court and, in any event, would not answer why Bisi was absent. Weighing the actual record, I cannot find it more likely than not that the disputed week was agreed or understood to be paid standby. 11. On the amount withheld, the rate is established but the entitlement for this particular week is not. Rule 25 requires attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Bisi’s claim that ₦30,000 was withheld depends on proving that the week was payable. Because she has not proved that essential fact, the amount claimed is not established as an unpaid wage debt. This is not a finding that Kunle’s account is independently proven; it is a finding that Bisi has not carried her burden on the claim. 12. Kunle’s request for punitive costs is denied. The record establishes a genuine dispute about what happened during the closure, not malicious prosecution or a basis for punitive relief. Bisi’s failure to prove the wage claim does not, by itself, establish that she acted maliciously. No costs or other payment are supported by the supplied record. Final order 13. The plaintiff’s claim for ₦30,000 in unpaid wages is dismissed because she did not prove that wages were due for the disputed stock-count week. The finding that the agreed weekly wage was ₦30,000 remains established, but it does not create an entitlement for this week on the evidence presented. 14. The defendant’s request for punitive costs is denied. No party is ordered to pay the other any amount under this judgment. The defendant prevails on the wage claim, without a finding that the unpresented attendance sheet proves the reason for Bisi’s absence.