Ibadan family court denies ₦60,000 support request over missing messages and financial gaps

The court hearing family matters in Ibadan has denied Bisi Akinwale’s request for temporary support of ₦60,000 a month, finding that neither an alleged WhatsApp promise nor the financial basis for that amount had been proved. It also declined to order the ₦35,000 monthly payment proposed by Kunle Akinwale.

Bisi had sought support during their separation, with a review after three months. The dispute concerned how to meet her living costs while her sewing income was irregular, against Kunle’s claim that reduced working hours had limited what he could afford.

No payment was ordered. The judgment expressly left open whether Bisi had unmet needs and whether Kunle earned additional income from weekend repairs.

The central evidential gap was the missing communication. Although Bisi’s submissions repeatedly referred to a WhatsApp screenshot recording a ₦60,000 promise, neither the screenshot nor the message text appeared in the hearing record. Asking that it be shown did not amount to presenting it.

The court explained that the missing date would not necessarily have defeated the claim. The more significant problem was the absence of the communication itself. It also declined to treat Kunle’s acknowledgment of Bisi’s argument about an agreement as an admission that the promise had occurred.

Kunle’s payslip established regular-job take-home pay of ₦145,000 and noted reduced paid hours. But it did not establish his total income or necessary expenses. His account of earlier take-home pay of about ₦200,000 lacked an earlier payslip to verify it.

The support rule required evidence of both need and ability to pay. Bisi supplied no quantified account of her income or living expenses, while Kunle supplied no reliable repair-profit figure or full expense breakdown. Customer payments could not simply be treated as profit after parts and other costs; nor could repair income be assumed to be zero.

Those gaps prevented the court from choosing either figure. The lower proposal was not a demonstrated calculation of fair support merely because a payslip supported Kunle’s regular earnings.

Bisi maintained that Kunle had voluntarily agreed to pay ₦60,000 because her sewing earnings were unsteady. She argued that ₦35,000 would not cover her living expenses and that his repair work brought in money beyond his salary.

Kunle disputed that the alleged promise had been established and relied on the payslip as the clearest evidence of his present means. He acknowledged weekend repair work but argued that customer receipts did not establish dependable profit available for support. He sought a temporary payment of ₦35,000.

The couple separated in Ibadan. Bisi’s request concerned temporary financial support, not responsibility for the separation.

The ruling turned on what was presented at the hearing, rather than a conclusion that support could never be justified. It left both the extent of Bisi’s needs and Kunle’s complete financial position unresolved.