Why is hearsay evidence permissible in interlocutory applications?

Question

Accepted Answer

Hearsay Evidence is Permissible in Interlocutory Applications Due to Urgency and Procedural Necessity

Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in legal proceedings, but it is permitted in interlocutory applications. This exception stems from the need to allow deponents to present information to the court, particularly in urgent situations, even if they cannot personally verify every fact. The rationale is to enable the court to manage the progression of a case and maintain the status quo while awaiting a final decision, as detailed in Order 41 rule 5(2) of the Rules of Court 2012.
Hearsay Evidence Facilitates Urgent Determinations

The primary reason for allowing hearsay evidence in interlocutory applications is to facilitate the court's ability to address matters that require prompt attention. In situations of urgency, a deponent may not have the time or means to gather first-hand proof for every assertion. By specifying the sources and grounds of their information and belief, deponents can present relevant facts to the court, as explained in Saving & Investments Bank Ltd v Gasco Investments (Netherlands) BV & Ors $$1984$$. This exception permits both first-hand and second-hand hearsay.
Order 41 Rule 5(2) Codifies the Exception

Order 41 rule 5(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 explicitly allows affidavits used in interlocutory proceedings to contain statements of information or belief, provided the deponent specifies the sources and grounds for this information. This rule acknowledges that the nature of interlocutory matters, which occur during the progress of a legal proceeding before a final order, often necessitates reliance on information that may not be directly provable by the deponent's own knowledge. This allows the court to make necessary directions for the conduct of the case.
Maintaining Status Quo and Procedural Efficiency

Interlocutory applications serve to manage the ongoing litigation, ensuring that the court can deal with the rights of parties while the action is pending. This might involve preserving the existing state of affairs (status quo) until a final judgment can be rendered or providing procedural directions for the case. The allowance of hearsay evidence in these contexts, as highlighted in Gilbert v Endean $$1878$$, supports these objectives by enabling a more efficient presentation of information to the court, even if it's not strictly first-hand evidence.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why is hearsay evidence permissible in interlocutory applications?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends