Hishamudin Yunus J:

[1] In the present case, pursuant to the filing of the civil suit, the plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application under O 29 r 1 of the Rules of the High (the "RHC") seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from using certain machinery and equipment located on a specified piece of land. The plaintiff alleges that the machinery and equipment belong to him and that he has not given any consent to the defendants to use them.

[2] For the purpose of this interlocutory application, the plaintiff has filed four affidavits, namely, encls 3, 6, 18 and 19. All the four affidavits are in the Malay language.

[3] At the commencement of the hearing of this interlocutory application, the learned counsel for the defendants, Encik Rozilan bin Abdul Rahman, raises a preliminary objection. He submits that all the four supporting affidavits are invalid on the ground that they do not have a jurat in the form as prescribed by O 41 r 1(7) and (8) of the RHC. As the affidavits are invalid, therefore (he submits), the interlocutory application is without any supporting affidavit. And, as it is without any supporting affidavit, it follows it should be dismissed with costs.

[4] Encik Rozilan informs this Court that prior notice of the preliminary objection has been given to the counsel for the plaintiff on 28 July 1999.

[5]Order 41 r 1(7) and (8) reads:

(7) Every affidavit must be signed by the deponent and the jurat must be completed and signed by the person before whom is sworn.

(8) A jurat must be in one of the forms in Form 78.

[Emphasis Are Added]

[6] Do note the word "must" in sub-rules (7) and (8).

[7] Form 78 provides:

1

No 78

FORMS OF JURAT (O 41 r 1)

(Title as in action)

(a) To an affidavit by one deponent ... Sworn (or affirmed) on the ... day of ... 19 ...

at (Through the interpretation of ...).

Before me

...

Commissioner for Oaths

(b) To an affidavit by two or more deponents... Sworn (or affirmed) by the deponents... and... (or by both (or all) of the abovenamed deponents) on the... day of..., 19... at (Through the interpretation of...).

Before me

...

Commissioner for Oaths

(c) To an affidavit by an illiterate or blind person ... Sworn (or affirmed) on the ... day of ... 19 .... ,at ...

I, having truly, distinctly and audibly read over the contents of the above affidavit (add if exhibits are referred to in the affidavit "and explained the nature and effect of the exhibits therein referred to") to the said deponent who seemed perfectly to understand the same and who made his mark thereto in my presence (Through the interpretation of...).

Before me

...

Commissioner for Oaths

(d) To an affidavit by a person who does not understand English.

Sworn (or affirmed) on the... day of..., 19... at... through the interpretation of... (if the interpreter is not a Court Interpreter add the following: "the said... having been first sworn that he had truly, distinctly, and audibly translated the contents of his affidavit to the deponent... and that he would truly and faithfully interpret the oath (or affirmation) about to be administered unto him the said...).

Before me

...

Commissioner for Oaths

[8] Encik Rozilan submits that the jurat should be in one of the above forms, depending on the circumstances of the deponent (ie, whether he understands the language used; or whether he is blind or illiterate). He submits that if the deponent is conversant in the Malay language and is not illiterate (or blind) then the jurat should be in Form (a), since the affidavits are in the Malay language.

[9] What is a "jurat"? It is not defined either in the RHC or in the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Nor is the term defined in the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967. In Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (1977 edn) "jurat" is defined as:

Jurat, the statement at the foot of an affidavit of the names of the parties swearing it, and of the officer before whom it is sworn, of the date, and of any other necessary particulars, as the affidavit of an illiterate