The Respondent filed a preliminary objection against this application for leave to defend a summary suit. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the affidavit offends the mandatory provisions of rule 74 (2) (c) of the High Court (Commercial Division) Procedure Rules, 2012 - GN No. 250 of 2012 because it has a jurat of attestation which has only a signature and impressed stamp but missing other necessary ingredients. He stated that this is contrary to the rule cited above, for, it lacks the full name, address and qualification of a person before whom the affidavit was sworn. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the applicant, rebutted that rule 74 of the Rules gives power to the Deputy Registrar of this court to reject an affidavit which contravenes Order IX of the CPC and section 8 of the Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act [Cap 12 R.E. 2002]. He continued to argue that section 8 of Cap 12 provides what is supposed to be contained in the Jurat; these are the “who”, “where” and “when” the oath has been taken. These were complied with and that is the reason why the Registrar did not reject the affidavit, he argued. He stressed that an affidavit cannot be defective just because the name of the officer attesting was not included in the jurat.