3 meeting but the defendant failed to show up and failed also to get in touch with Plaintiff. This development led to the institution of this action. In his written address, the learned Plaintiff’s counsel formulated a lone issue for the determination of the court, thus: “whether the Plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof on it by section 135 of the Evidence Act to be entitled to the reliefs sought.” Advancing his argument, the learned counsel submitted that civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence. He gave the case of Usman v. K.S.H.A. (2007)13 NWLR (pt.1044) p.148 at 164. He went further to submit that, in arriving at a decision as to where evidence tilts, the court has to weigh the evidence of the Plaintiff against that of the defendant in an imaginary scale to determine in whose favour the balance of justice tilts. This principles of law, according to the learned counsel, applies where issues were joined by the parties by filing their respective pleadings and proffering evidence on them. He argued that in the instant case, only the Plaintiff filed its pleading and led evidence in support. The learned counsel contended that the implication of this, is that there is nothing on the part of the defendant for the court to evaluate along side the evidence of the Plaintiff. He therefore paused a question thus: In such situation, what measure of proof is required of the Plaintiff to be entitled to judgment? The law under such circumstance is that only a minimal measure of proof is required for the Plaintiff to be entitled to judgment, he asserted. He drew support from the case of Afribank Nig. Ltd v. Moslad Ent. Ltd (2008) All FWLR (pt.421) p.877 at 894.