Skip to main content

Article 40/2025

Is it a requirement that each page of an affidavit must be initialled?

Is it a requirement that every page of every annexure to an affidavit must be initialled?

_____________________________________

The LC, in Ellsworth John O’Connor v LexisNexis (Pty) Ltd (2024) 35 SALLR 124 (LC), had the following to say in respect of the above questions:

  • it pointed out that in casu, while the founding affidavit had been properly commissioned on the last page, every other page had not been initialled by either the applicant or the commissioner
  • the LC was, however, satisfied that there was no defect in the founding affidavit because, on the authority of Minister of Safety and Security and Others v Mohamed and Another (2) [2010] 4 All SA 538 (WCC), at [26], initialling every page is not a requirement for the validity of an affidavit
  • in the LC’s viewpoint, initialling every page of an affidavit certainly represents best practice, because it gives the court confidence that the words used in the affidavit are really those of the deponent – however, initialling every page of the annexures also appeared to be unnecessary, as the other party would always be free to dispute the authenticity of those documents, whether they were initialled or not

The previous article dealt with the distinction between misconduct constituting desertion and misconduct constituting abscondment – see, further, in this regard, Okhahlamba Local Municipality v Mabuya (2021) 32 SALLR 12 (LC).

In this article, what we attempt to do is provide some clarity as to a very different misconduct, namely, the misconduct of deeming desertion.

What is the difference between desertion and abscondment?

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?