Dr. Zakaria bin Mohd Yatim J:

This is an application by the first, eighth and ninth Respondents (the applicants) for an order in terms of the following prayers:

(1) That paragraphs 16 - 18, 21 - 32, 34 - 35 and 37 - 41 of the affidavit of Lee Chan Wa affirmed on 21 February 1990 (the said affidavit) be struck out; (2) That all the exhibits to the said affidavit, save and except for ''LCW 2A-2-F" be struck out; (3) That the second to seventh respondents pay the costs of and incidental to the application.

The grounds of the application are that the said paragraphs and exhibits to the said affidavit are scandalous, irrelevant, inadmissible or otherwise oppressive. The application was made under O.41 r. 6 of the Rules of the High Court and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

Before proceeding to submit on the paragraphs referred to in the application, Mr. James Puthucheary, Counsel for the applicants, referred to paragraph 4 of the said affidavit. Paragraph 4 states:

4. The matters deposed to herein are true to the best of my information knowledge and belief from all records made available to me and to transactions with which I have been personally and intimately involved on behalf of KGSB and the 6 Sdn. Bhds.

Mr. Puthucheary submitted that the deponent did not give evidence from his personal knowledge. He cited S.K.T. Kulanthayan Chettier v. Koh Liak Phuang [1951] 17 MLJ 149 where it was held that the words "to the best of my knowledge" when referred to the acts of another person must mean ''to the best of my knowledge, information and belief." What was deposed to in that case was not within the knowledge of the deponent and therefore without such statement as contained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Ramaswamy Pillay the motion showed no cause of action and was accordingly dismissed.

Mr. Purthucheary next referred to Hari Singh V. Sundarammal . In that case it was decided that when knowledge and information and belief were alleged at the same time in an affidavit it was necessary for the defendant to state how much of the allegation was based on personal knowledge and how much on information and belief. In his judgment in that case, MacIntyre J. said at pages 174 and 175 as follows:

In his affidavit dated 7 December 1964 and filed in support of the application for an attachment before judgment, the plaintiff says, inter alia, that the defendant had come to Malaya on a visit pass and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief she was making arrangements to leave the country for good on 17 December 1964. He further says: 'to the best of my knowledge, information and belief the defendant is negotiating the sale of her interests on this said two pieces of land.'...

In the case of In re J.L. Young Manufacturing Co. Ltd., on an appeal from an order refusing an applicant's claim to rank as a debenture holder based on evidence which consisted mainly of affidavits containing statements on 'information and belief' Lord Alverstone CJ said:

In my opinion some of the affidavits in this case are wholly worthless and not to be relied upon. I notice that in several instances the deponents make statements on their 'information and belief' without saying what the source of information and belief is, and in many respects what they so state is not confirmed in any way. In my opinion socalled evidence on 'information and belief' ought not to be looked at all, not only unless the Court can ascertain the source of the information and belief, but also unless the deponent's statement is corroborated by some one who speaks from his own knowledge. If such affidavits are made in future, it is as well that it should be understood that they are worthless and ought not to be received as evidence in any shape whatever; and as soon as affidavits are drawn so as to avoid matters that are not evidence, the better it will be for the administration of justice.

Supporting this judgment Rigby L.J said:

I never pay the s