9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 85 of the Evidence Act regarding the necessity of an affidavit of identification for a Power-of-Attorney. Analysis: The appeal in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 85 of the Evidence Act concerning the requirement of an affidavit of identification for a Power-of-Attorney. The petitioner, a member of a firm, sought letters of administration based on a Power-of-Attorney executed by the executor named in the will. Mr. Justice Bodilly initially denied the application, stating that Section 85 did not eliminate the need for an affidavit of identification. The crux of the matter lies in determining whether the authentication by a Notary Public suffices as an affidavit of identity. The section mandates that the court presumes the authenticity of a document like a Power-of-Attorney executed before a Notary Public. The Court deliberated on whether an additional affidavit of identity is essential despite the Notary's authentication. The judges opined that, in the absence of suspicious circumstances, the Notary's certification should be deemed sufficient under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. They argued that requiring an affidavit of identity could lead to an endless chain of verification without real protection against fraud. The primary objective of Section 85 is to eliminate the need for such additional requirements. The Court emphasized that, historically, no affidavit of identity has been mandated for nearly 35 years, and the standard practice has been to rely on Section 85 without additional verification. They cautioned against deviating from this practice without compelling reasons. However, Rule 748 of Belchambers' Rules and Orders states that the Power-of-Attorney must be verified to the satisfaction of the Court or a Judge. While respecting the Judge's discretion in seeking further evidence, the Court found fault with the outright dismissal of the application. They suggested that if additional verification was deemed necessary, the Judge should have allowed the application to stand over until the required affidavit was produced. The case was remitted back to the learned Judge for reconsideration. In separate opinions, Justices S.G. Sale and Richard Harington concurred with the Chief Justice's analysis and decision. The unanimous view was that no affidavit of identity was necessary under Section 85, and the Judge should have allowed the application to proceed with the option of seeking additional evidence if deemed essential.
|
