Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The plaintiff, Bisi Akinwale, asks the court to require the defendant, Kunle Akinwale, to provide support. The plaintiff’s submissions describe an alleged WhatsApp agreement for ₦60,000. The defendant disputes that the amount is established and asks the court to set temporary support at ₦35,000. Both parties have had an opportunity to make final submissions. The court decides on the shared hearing record and the supplied rules only. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether the plaintiff proved that the defendant promised ₦60,000 in support, and whether the record establishes a fair support amount based on the plaintiff’s need and the defendant’s ability to pay. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the alleged promise and the facts supporting the requested relief. The supplied support rule requires consideration of both need and ability; neither party’s proposal alone proves what amount is fair. Submissions of the parties 3. The plaintiff says the parties agreed to ₦60,000 because the plaintiff’s sewing income was not steady. The plaintiff says a WhatsApp screenshot exists, asserts that the agreement was voluntary, and asks the court to reconsider the defendant’s proposed ₦35,000 in light of living expenses. In the final submission, the plaintiff also says the defendant earns money from repair work. These are the plaintiff’s assertions; the screenshot and a quantified account of income or expenses were not presented. 4. The defendant says the alleged promise is not established because no screenshot or message contents were shown. The defendant relies on the latest payslip, which records take-home pay of ₦145,000 and reduced paid hours. The defendant acknowledges weekend repair work but says the notebook records customer payments rather than profit after costs. The defendant cannot provide a reliable monthly repair-profit figure or full necessary-expense breakdown, and asks for ₦35,000 temporary support. Evidence and findings 5. The payslip is a presented payment record and supports the finding that the defendant’s latest regular-job take-home pay was ₦145,000, with reduced paid hours noted. It does not establish total income, repair profits, or necessary expenses. The defendant’s statement that previous take-home pay was about ₦200,000 is not supported by an earlier payslip and is not treated as independently verified. The repeated payslip entries refer to the same described record, not separate proof of separate income. 6. The plaintiff’s submissions consistently allege an agreement and refer to a screenshot, but no screenshot or message text appears in the record. The plaintiff’s request to show the screenshot is not the screenshot itself. The defendant’s statement that the defendant understands the plaintiff’s point that an agreement was made is not an admission that the promise occurred; the defendant continues to dispute that it is established. 7. The plaintiff says sewing income is irregular and refers to living expenses, but provides no amounts or supporting records. The defendant acknowledges repair work, but the record contains no reliable net-profit figure. The defendant candidly says the repair notebook records customer payments rather than what remains after parts and other costs. The court therefore does not treat repair receipts as profit, but also does not find that repair income is zero. Neither party’s full financial position is established. Reasons 8. Under Rule 1, the side asking for relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting it. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than vague or unsupported accounts. On the alleged promise, the plaintiff has provided a consistent account but no direct message, screenshot, or message contents. The absence of a date alone would not necessarily defeat the claim, but the absence of the alleged communication itself leaves the central term unverified. The plaintiff has not met the burden of proving a ₦60,000 promise. The issue is not_proven. 9. The court next considers whether it can set support at either proposed amount under Rule 13, which requires attention to both need and ability to pay. The payslip is meaningful evidence of regular take-home pay and reduced hours. It does not show the defendant’s total available income or expenses. The plaintiff’s account of irregular sewing income and living expenses is relevant, but without amounts it does not establish the level of need. The defendant’s repair work may add income, but the record does not establish how much remains after costs. The court will not assume either that gross customer payments are spendable income or that repair work produces no income. 10. Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to what the record supports. The plaintiff’s requested ₦60,000 is not established by proof of an agreement or by a demonstrated comparison of need and ability. The defendant’s proposed ₦35,000 is also a proposal, not a calculation grounded in a complete account of either party’s finances. The court cannot select that figure merely because it is lower or because regular take-home pay is shown. The fair amount issue is not_proven on this record. 11. The defendant therefore prevails in this hearing because the plaintiff has not established a basis for the requested support order. This result is limited to the evidence presented. It is not a finding that the plaintiff has no living needs, that the defendant has no repair income, or that support could never be justified. The court does not invent a different amount where the record does not provide a reliable basis for one. Final order 12. The plaintiff’s request for an order requiring ₦60,000 support is denied on the present record. No alternative support amount is ordered, including the defendant’s proposed ₦35,000, because the evidence does not establish a fair amount under the supplied rule. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. The defendant is the prevailing side in this hearing. This judgment makes no finding that the plaintiff has no need or that the defendant has no additional income; those matters remain unproven on the record before the court.