The plaintiff attached these goods and had them sold on the basis that

the goods belonged to the defendant. But what evidence was there to

support that contention? None whatsoever except the say-so of the

plaintiffs solicitors in the writ of seizure and sale. The plaintiff

did not file any affidavit to contradict the affidavits filed by the

claimant. Where a case is to be decided on a contest of affidavits, the

rule is clear. Material allegations which are not contradicted are

deemed to be admitted: See Tynte v Buller (1854) 23 LJ Ch 504; 2

WR 309. At the hearing, the claimants oral evidence that she was the

sole owner of the goods was also unchallenged. Per Shankar J in

Overseas Investment Pte Ltd v Anthony William O Brien & Anor

[1988] 3 MLJ 332 at pp 333-334.

Does that passage convey the meaning that at the hearing of an interpleader summons, the judgment creditor is obliged to give evidence to show that the goods seized are that of the judgment debtor in order to rebut the claimants case? That is the question to be answered in this appeal pursuant to s 28(1) of the Courts of J