counsels and I feel more inclined to agree with that of counsel for the applicant that indeed the
facts deponed to were within the deponent’s knowledge. The controversial paragraphs would
have probably been 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit in support but, even then, the deponent attached
documentary proofs that speak for themselves to support what was stated therein.
I am persuaded by the decision in the case of Green watch v Attorney General and Another
(supra) that knowledge can be acquired using the five human senses. In this case, it is not in
dispute that there is a principal-agent relationship between the applicant and the donee of power
of attorney. I believe that relationship required full disclosure of information relating to the
applicant’s business. I am persuaded by the authorities relied upon by counsel for the applicant
and in the circumstances, I find the deponent of the affidavit in support competent to swear that
affidavit in the manner he did and I rule that that affidavit is competent and shall be relied upon
by this court.
As regards the affidavit in rebuttal, I think the procedure in our judicial system as discerned from
the Civil Procedure Rules is quite clear whether, as regards filing of pleadings or hearing of the
matter, that, it is normally the plaintiff/applicant who begins and the defendant/respondent
replies and rejoinder if any is made by the plaintiff/applicant. No automatic right of
reply/rejoinder or rebuttal accrues to the defendant/respondent except by leave of court. If
litigants were allowed to file documents as and when they felt like, then there would be no end to
litigation. I believe the Rules Committee prescribed timelines for filing court documents and
order of proceedings so as to address such mischief by creating orderliness in litigation.
For the above reason, I would have ordinarily been inclined to find that the so called affidavit in
rebuttal was filed contrary to the well known procedure and practice in our judicial system.
Consequently, I would have accordingly expunged it from the court records. However, given the
point of contention between the parties concerning the status of Hong Kong vis-a-vis China and
the fact that the applicant has not shown that it would suffer prejudice/injustice if the evidence
adduced by that affidavit is admitted, I will in the interest of justice admit the evidence and rely
on it. I believe it is in the best interest of both parties that all the evidence particularly
information on the relationship between China and Hong Kong that could assist this court to
arrive at a just and fair decision should be made available. In arriving at this conclusion, I was
also guided by the provisions of Article 126 (2) (e) especially in view of the fact that there is no
mandatory provision of the law stating the above procedure.
On admissibility of the documents attached to the affidavit in reply and the affidavit in rebuttal, I
agree with the submission of counsel for the respondent that data message is now admissible
under section 8 of the recently enacted Electronic Transactions Act, 2011 that came into force on
15th April, 2011. Under section 2 of that Act, data message is defined as data generated, sent,
received or stored by computer means and includes(a) Voice, where the voice is used in an automated transaction; and
(b) A stored record.
I believe the materials obtained by the respondent qualify to be a data message which is
admissible under section 8 of the Act. However, the data message must comply with authenticity