Civil court in Ibadan dismisses ₦18,000 claim over fall on freshly mopped shop floor

The Civil court in Ibadan dismissed Bisi Akinwale’s claim seeking ₦18,000 from shopkeeper Kunle Adesina for treatment and transport following a fall on his freshly mopped floor. It ordered no payment or damages, finding that she had not proved an ineffective warning or connected the fall to the claimed compensable harm.

The court accepted that Adesina had acknowledged the stated expense. However, that acknowledgment did not establish an injury, its connection to the fall, or his responsibility to pay. No costs or other relief were ordered.

Under Rules 1 and 33 of the supplied rules, Akinwale bore the burden of proving the essential links between a duty of care, its breach, causation and harm. Recent mopping was established, but the evidence did not resolve whether the warning could be seen before she reached the wet floor.

A WhatsApp exchange, accepted as genuine, recorded Akinwale saying she had not seen a sign on entry. Adesina replied that the yellow sign was beside the entrance. The court considered these accounts relevant but found that the exchange did not independently establish visibility.

The photograph showed a yellow sign beside the entrance frame about ten minutes after the fall. Because it excluded most of the door, it did not establish an entering customer’s view at the relevant time. The court treated it neither as conclusive proof of visibility nor as evidence that the sign had been absent earlier.

Akinwale’s acknowledgment that she was looking towards the shelves made her account less certain, but did not prove that the sign was visible. Equally, Adesina’s assertion that nobody had previously fallen did not establish visibility on this occasion.

The injury evidence presented a separate gap. There was no description of the injury, treatment received, or other proof linking treatment to the fall. The court explained that medical records were not the only permissible evidence, but no alternative evidence supplied the necessary connection.

The court also declined to apportion fault under Rule 34, which permits a reduction where both sides contributed to an injury. That rule could not replace missing proof of breach or injury. It made no finding that Akinwale was careless merely because she had been looking towards the shelves.

Akinwale argued that the central question was whether the sign could be seen in time, not simply whether one existed. She relied on her contemporaneous message, Adesina’s admission of recent mopping and the photograph’s limited view. She acknowledged having no independent proof of what she could see on entry.

Adesina’s side argued that the sign was properly placed and relied on the asserted absence of earlier accidents. It also challenged the proof of harm and sought dismissal or, alternatively, a reduced award.

The court held that Adesina’s later challenge to the amount did not erase his acknowledgment of the ₦18,000 expense. Nevertheless, agreement about the amount was distinct from proof of liability.

The dispute arose after Akinwale fell in Adesina’s Ibadan shop while he was mopping. He maintained that he had placed a yellow wet-floor sign just inside the entrance before the fall and said he photographed it afterwards without moving it.

The parties completed their final statements without offering further proof. The dismissal turns on the missing evidentiary links in this record: it does not establish that no fall occurred, that no expense was incurred, or that the warning was adequate.