Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Enclosure 17

[1] This was the plaintiff's application for extension of time to file an affidavit in reply to the defendant's affidavit in reply. It was in the nature of an interlocutory application. Every application in chambers is supported by an affidavit. Every legal practitioner knows that an affidavit is a sworn statement which can be used as evidence of the matters deposed thereto. Roskill LJ in Alfred Dunhill Limited And Another v. Sunoptic S.A. And Another [1979] FSR 337, 352 observed that:

Affidavits are designed to place facts, whether disputed or otherwise, before the tribunal for whose help they are prepared. They are not designed as a receptacle for or as a vehicle for legal arguments. Draftsmen of affidavits should not, as a general rule, put into the mouths of the intended deponents legal arguments of which those deponents are unlikely ever to have heard. Legal arguments, especially in interlocutory proceedings, should come from the mouths of those best qualified to advance them and not be put into the mouths of the deponents. There has been much unnecessary paper in this case brought about by the inclusion of legal arguments in affidavits.

What To Incorporate In An Affidavit?

[2] It is always prudent when drafting an affidavit to incorporate the following particulars:

(a) the title of the action;

(b) the deponent's name, address and occupation;

(c) to state whether the deponent is employed by the party to the action;

(d) it must always be expressed in the first person;

(e) for coherence, it must be divided into numbered paragraphs;

(f) that the dates, sums and other numbers must be written in figures and not in words; and

(g) that it must be indorsed with a note showing on whose behalf the affidavit is being filed.

[3] It is also prudent to bear in mind that every affidavit must bear the signature of the deponent and the jurat must be completed and signed by the person before whom it is sworn. A jurat is a certificate of the administering officer or a person before whom the affidavit was sworn. It refers to that part of the clause written at the foot of an affidavit, more to the lower portion, stating, inter alia, when, where and before whom such an affidavit was sworn. If an affidavit is defective, it shall not be used in evidence (Voon Mow Chen v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Anor [1993] 4 CLJ 195; and Hau Euu Tiam v. Phang Kui Fatt & 2 Ors [1999] 4 CLJ 395). The affidavit may contain only such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove. The source of the information and the grounds thereof must also be stated and once stated it may contain hearsay evidence (Harrison v. Bottenheim [1878] 26 WR 362). An affidavit of information and belief which do not state the source of the information or belief, is irregular and inadmissible as evidence and this is so whether the affidavit is used at an interlocutory stage or on a final application (Re J.L. Young Manufacturing Co Ltd [1900] 2 Ch 753 CA; Lumley v Osborne [1901] 1 KB 532; and Kulanthayar Chettiar v. Koh Liak Phuang [1951] MLJ 149). The court has the inherent discretion to strike out the offending parts of the affidavit and allow the rest of the contents of the affidavit to remain on record (Dyncast Pte Ltd v. Lim Meng Siang & Ors [1989] 2 CLJ 1116; [1989] 2 CLJ (Rep) 900). An affidavit in reply must specifically reply to the allegations of fact and not law as affirmed in an affidavit. And that the failure to reply specifically to any allegations may be fatal. At this juncture, it is ideal to refer to the judgment of Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) in Alloy Automotive Sdn. Bhd. v Perusahaan Ironfield Sdn Bhd [1986] 1 CLJ 2; [1986] CLJ (Rep) 45. There his Lordship observed that:

In his affidavit dated April 30, 1984 Choo Chak Low did not answer the matters raised in the above affidavit of Liew Mook. There is force in the appellant's contention that an affidavit must reply specifically to allegations, and if it does not, then tho