Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Bisi Akinwale claims that Kunle Adebiyi owes her ₦40,000 as the unpaid balance of her April salary. The parties agree that the agreed salary was ₦90,000 and that Kunle transferred ₦50,000 to Bisi on 30 April. The bank record describes that transfer as “April salary part.” Bisi asks only for the remaining ₦40,000. 2. Kunle says he paid the balance in cash on 3 May. He relies on a handwritten wage-ledger entry stating “Bisi — April balance — ₦40,000 cash.” The entry has no employee signature. The parties have had a fair opportunity to address the payment record and the absence of an acknowledgment. Bisi has said she has no receipt, independent witness, or further obtainable proof about the alleged cash handover. Kunle has identified no witness or other independent confirmation of receipt. The evidence is exhausted, and adjournment is not available. Issues for determination 3. The sole issue is whether Bisi has proved that the remaining ₦40,000 of April salary is still owed. Under Rule 1, the party asking the court for relief must support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Rule 25 directs attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 2 recognizes that reliable records generally carry more weight than unsupported recollections, while the reliability and limits of each record still matter. Submissions of the parties 4. Bisi submits that the bank record proves only a part-payment: it records a ₦50,000 transfer against the agreed ₦90,000 salary. She argues that Kunle’s ledger is his own unsigned record and does not show that she received the cash. She acknowledges that she cannot independently prove the cash was not handed over, but maintains that the ledger does not establish receipt either. She seeks the limited remedy of ₦40,000. 5. Kunle submits that the ledger records the ₦40,000 cash payment and that the balance was paid before Bisi left on 3 May. His client account repeats that position. He has acknowledged that he has no signed acknowledgment or identifiable witness to confirm the cash payment. His closing argument relies principally on the ledger entry. Evidence and findings 6. The bank transaction record is accepted by both parties as authentic. It establishes that Kunle transferred ₦50,000 to Bisi on 30 April and that the transfer was described as an April salary part. Together with the parties’ agreement about the salary, it establishes the salary amount and the part-payment. It does not establish whether a separate cash payment followed. 7. The ledger is a presented exhibit, not missing evidence. It records a specific cash payment of ₦40,000 on 3 May. Its specificity gives it some evidentiary weight. But it was created by Kunle, the party relying on it, and its employee-signature space is blank. The record does not independently establish when the entry was made or that Bisi acknowledged receiving the money. The ledger therefore supports Kunle’s account but does not conclusively prove receipt. 8. Kunle’s client statements are attributed accounts relayed through counsel, not independent documents or admitted witness testimony. They are consistent with the ledger and add support to his position, but they do not independently verify the handover. Bisi’s account that she received only the transfer is likewise an attributed account, and she has candidly acknowledged that she has no separate receipt or witness. Neither party’s account resolves the central uncertainty by itself. Reasons 9. Bisi has established that she earned ₦90,000 and received ₦50,000. Those facts do not alone establish that the remaining ₦40,000 is still owed, because the parties dispute whether it was later paid in cash. The court must decide the claim on the whole record, not treat the transfer’s “part” description as proof that no later payment occurred. 10. The ledger is not a signed receipt and cannot be treated as conclusive proof. Its lack of acknowledgment is a real weakness in Kunle’s evidence, particularly because no witness or other independent confirmation was identified. But the court also cannot infer from the blank signature space alone that the cash was not paid. The ledger is a specific record of the claimed payment, and Kunle’s account is consistent with it. Bisi has not provided independent evidence that the payment did not occur. 11. The competing evidence leaves uncertainty about the cash handover. That uncertainty does not mean the court has found as a fact that Kunle paid the cash. It means that, on this record, Bisi has not proved that the balance remains unpaid. Rule 1 places the burden for the requested relief on Bisi. Rule 25 calls for a clear accounting, and the record supplies a clear account of the agreed salary and bank transfer, but not reliable confirmation either way about the disputed cash handover. Applying the burden of proof, the claim for the additional ₦40,000 is not established. The court does not shift the burden to Kunle to prove a negative; it decides whether Bisi has proved her claim. 12. Bisi’s request is narrow and proportionate to the amount she says remains due. The difficulty is not the size or form of the remedy, but the unresolved proof of whether the balance was paid. No other wage amount or remedy is supported by the record. Final order 13. Bisi Akinwale’s claim for ₦40,000 in outstanding April salary is denied. No payment is ordered from Kunle Adebiyi to Bisi Akinwale. This order reflects Bisi’s failure to prove on the available record that the balance remains unpaid; it is not a finding that the unsigned ledger conclusively proves receipt. No other relief is granted.