or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court, in summary judgment proceedings, finds that: (1) it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceedings seeking sums due on foot of two loan agreements between the plaintiff bank and defendant borrower in default, despite certain technical errors in the affidavits lodged on behalf of the plaintiff, and (2) the borrower's application to cross-examine the bank's deponents regarding their respective affidavits requires the borrower to set out his reasons for such application in an affidavit of his own.
Summary judgment application - two loan agreements - computerised mortgage account system constituted plaintiff's bankers' book - motions brought by defendant seeking to dismiss proceedings - purported promissory note sent by defendant to official in plaintiff bank proposing to discharge sums due - no evidence of acceptance - proposed points of law of defendant - application to cross-examine plaintiff deponent based on allegation of perjury - no meaningful engagement by defendant borrower with bank regarding sums due - challenge to court's jurisdiction based on alleged deficiencies in plaintiff's affidavit - jury - court rules not a penal statute - time and place of abode on affidavit - no prejudice - technical defect - application to cross-examine - leave of court required given timing of application - interests of justice - defendant applicant required to place its reasons on affidavit as to why he wishes to have deponents cross-examined.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.