date. In the Court of appeal case of Tarlok Singh Saggu vs. Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2000 the issue before the court was whether an application should be struck out because the affidavit in support was not dated on the date it was commissioned. The court held at page 7 - 8: "it is trite that the defect in the jurat or any irregularity in the form of the affidavit could not be allowed to vitiate an affidavit in view of article 126 (e) of the 1995 constitution which stipulates that substantive justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities. I should perhaps mention that the jurat is the short statement at the foot of the affidavit indicating when, where and before it was sworn. It would follow that the learned judge had the power to order that the undated affidavit be dated" or that the affidavit to be re sworn before putting it on record. He was also correct to penalise the offending party costs.... The errors or omissions regarding the date, place and the commissioner, cannot vitiate an application." The court settled the law that an error concerning the place of commissioning is not fatal and does not vitiate the affidavit. I am bound to follow the authority of the Court of Appeal. In this case the correct place may be substituted by amendment to the typescript to replace “Kampala” for the proper place. In any case it is obvious that it was not the notary public who typed the script “Kampala”. The objection of the respondent founded on section 6 of the Oaths Act is therefore overruled. As far as the second ground of objection to the application is concerned, the respondents issue is that ground (a) of the chamber summons pleads that the applicant begun trading in cosmetics known as “Nice & Lovely” since 2003. The affidavit in support sworn by Esther Kilonzi attaches the certificate of registration of the trademark in Uganda registered on the 13 th of January 1998. The affidavit also annexes a deed of assignment of the trademark to the applicant on the 9th of February 2009. Last but not least counsel referred to the supplementary affidavit of the applicant sworn by Charles Njenga that the applicant begun doing business in the products in 2001. The respondents counsel relied on the case of Bitaitana vs. Kanamira (1977) HCB 34. In that case the appellant‟s notice of motion was supported by an affidavit of one of the appellants adopted by the other appellants. The trial Magistrate found that the affidavit was false in that paragraph 6 thereof was inconsistent with paragraph 2 of the Notice of Motion. He held that the lie went to the root of the application. On appeal it was submitted for the appellants that the inconsistencies were not grave. Allen J held that inconsistence in affidavits cannot be ignored however minor since a sworn affidavit is not a document to be treated lightly. Where an affidavit contains an obvious falsehood it becomes suspect. The High Court further held that an application supported by a false affidavit is bound to fail because the applicant does not come to court with clean hands. In this case there is no evidence of inconsistencies as far as statements on oath are concerned. The inconsistency with the chamber summons should be considered in the context that the