In rejoinder/reply to this preliminary point of law the applicants counsel conceded that the affidavit in issue is stated to be sworn in Kampala but this was in error. He admitted that it was notarised in Nairobi. Referring to the Court of Appeal case of Tarlok Singh vs. Road Master Cycles CA 46 of 2000 he submitted that the case decides that errors in respect of an affidavit relating to date and place of commissioning is not fatal and the court can have the errors corrected. He argued that such an affidavit is not defective and the court can proceed to act on it so long as it does no cause injustice to the other party. Counsel further argued that the applicant had relied on two other affidavits and a supplementary affidavit in rejoinder. Those affidavits were on court record and he prayed that reads them and determines the application on the merits. Concerning the contradiction in years as to when the applicant begun its business, by the time application was filed it gave the period as 2003 but the affidavit of Charles Njenga in supplement is clear that the date was 2001. Counsel argued that this affidavit takes precedence over the chamber summons and was not a major contradiction. He contended that the trademark was acquired in 2009. There is no need to go into the history of how a trade mark was acquired. There is a decision made by an earlier court. Counsel contended that the registration of a trademark operates as prima facie evidence. The objection of the respondents counsel touches on two matters namely an error in the place of commissioning the affidavit of the applicant in support of the chamber summons in that it was sworn in Kampala yet by a Notary Public at Nairobi. His argument being that a notary public of Kenya cannot commission an affidavit in Uganda. The second matter concerns a contradiction in the dates of when the applicant commenced business contained in the chamber summons and the affidavits in support. To begin with, the first objection of the respondent is based on non compliance with section 6 of the Oaths Act cap 19 2000 Laws of Uganda. Section 6 of the Oaths Act provides: “ 6. Place and date of oath. Every commissioner for oaths or notary public before whom any oath or affidavit is taken or made under this Act shall state truly in the jurat or attestation at what place and on what date the oath or affidavit is taken or made” The provision requires that the place where the oath or affidavit is taken should be indicated. It also provides that the date shall be stated. In this case the affidavit is on type script and drawn by Messrs Mugenyi and Company Advocates. The words “Sworn by Ms Esther Kilonzi at Kampala in the jurat is typed by the said firm for they type “Drawn and filed by: “Messrs Mugenyi and Company Advocates”. The Notary Public only had a space for writing the date and the Month. The fact that the affidavit is sworn at Nairobi or by someone from Nairobi is proven by the seal of a notary public of Nairobi. Accompanying the seal is also a stamp showing that the affidavit was commissioned by Arthur K. Igeria Notary Public of Nairobi. The only logical conclusion on the balance of probabilities is that affidavit was drawn in Kampala and sent for commissioning in