VC George J:

[1] In this appeal, inter alia, the effect and the extent of the requirement in an O 14 application that the plaintiff verify the facts on which the claim is based, was considered. By the statement of claim, the plaintiff had contended that, pursuant to a cheque discounting facility agreement, the plaintiff had to purchase the first defendant's customers' cheques 'upon terms and conditions set forth in a letter dated 11 March 1982'. It was also averred that the first defendant had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 3% per mensem on the amount represented by dishonoured cheques from the date of maturity of the said cheques until full settlement. The plaintiff then went on to contend that the second, third and fourth defendants had by a 'guarantee and indemnity dated 11 March 1982 agreed to guarantee and indemnify the plaintiff against all losses, damages and expenses which the plaintiffs may suffer'. The statement of claim ended with a statement of the amount said to be owing as principal and as interest as at 28 February 1986 which, it was contended, had not been paid in spite of demands. Judgment for the said amounts was prayed for.

[2] The plaintiff took out its O 14 application against all the defendants which was supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff's operations manager who on oath confirmed that the first defendant was 'justly and truly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum set out in the summons-in-chambers' and went on to state that the 'particulars of the said claim appear in the statement of claim filed herein'.

[3] What the deponent was doing was to adhere closely to the form of the supporting affidavit for an O 14 application prescribed by the Rules of High 1980, the form being Form 18 thereof. The deponent went on to confirm, as is required by Form 18, that the amount claimed was still due and owing and that he verily believed that there was no defence to the action.

[4] Although all aspects of the format set out in the prescribed Form 18 had thus been met, the deponent did not leave the affidavit at that but exhibited a copy of the letter that contained the terms and conditions of the cheque discounting facility between the parties as well as a copy of the letter of guarantee. He also stated that in fact the first defendant had sent a letter dated 15 January 1985 in which it had admitted the debt.

[5] At the hearing before the senior assistant registrar, the defendants who had not filed any affidavit in reply had apparently contended that the O 14 application was wanting in that:

(1) the plaintiff had not exhibited the said letter that had been referred to in the operation manager's affidavit as being an admission of the debt;

(2) the plaintiff had not exhibited the cheques said to have been discounted;

(3) the plaintiff had not exhibited any statement of account between the plaintiff and the first defendant; and?

(4) the plaintiff had not proven that the second, third and fourth defendants were partners.

[6] Upon being confronted with this submission, counsel for the plaintiff had apparently sought and obtained an adjournment to file a further affidavit in order to exhibit the documents. A further affidavit was filed and after that one of the guarantors, who was a partner in the first defendant, filed an affidavit in opposition to the O 14 application. The point was apparently taken that the senior assistant registrar had no jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to file a further affidavit (and presumably to read it at the continued hearing) and it was contended that without the further affidavit the position would have been that there had not been a verification of the facts on which the claim was based.

[7] The learned senior assistant registrar apparently disagreed with the jurisdictional point and, having read the further affidavit, gave summary judgment as prayed against each of the defendants. The first defendant appealed. In chambers, I had allowed the appeal but having decided to and ent