Introduction:
The Respondent challenged the
Applicant’s founding and confirmatory affidavit on the basis that the
affidavits were commissioned virtually and therefore “not in the presence of”
the Commissioner of oaths.
The Respondent essentially
contended that the commissioning of the founding and confirmatory affidavits
via video conference call while the deponents to the affidavits were in Italy
and the Commissioner of Oaths is in the Republic of South Africa, was in
contravention of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act, 16
of 1963 and Regulations governing the administering of an oath, and accordingly
the affidavits were irregular and fell to be set aside.
The commissioner of oaths made
an affidavit, confirming to the Court that to the best of his knowledge and
belief data integrity was maintained, and requested that the Court grant
condonation for non-compliance with the Act and the Regulations.
Court's Finding:
In summary it was found that in
light of the comprehensive affidavit submitted by the Commissioner, there was
substantial compliance with the Act and Regulations and the mere technicality
of the deponent not being in the presence of the Commissioner of Oaths was
something that constituted an unnecessarily technicality, which was a hindrance
to the speedy and effectual administration of justice.
The judge citing with approval
this dictum: The tendency of recent rules of procedure in this Court has
been to sweep away all unnecessary technicalities and hindrances to the speedy
and effectual administration of justice.’
Conclusion:
The Court upheld the validity of virtually signed affidavits,
recognizing the importance of embracing technological advancements while
ensuring substantial compliance with legal requirements. While acknowledging
the necessity for adherence to laws and regulations, the ruling signifies a
shift towards accommodating contemporary methods in legal proceedings, thus
facilitating a more efficient and accessible justice system.
