The Counsel for the Defendant in this case raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Plaint is bad in law as it offends the mandatory provisions of Order VI rule 15 (1), (2) and (3) read together with Order IV rule 1 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E. 2002]. The verification clause did not indicate the name of the verifier but simply stated “signed by a Principal Officer of the Plaintiff duly authorised to sign documents.” The Defendants’ counsel called for the Court to strike out the suit due to defective verification. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the law did not require the inclusion of a name in the verification clause and that the phrase “signed by a Principal Officer of the Plaintiff duly authorised to sign documents” and the signature of the company’s principal officer was sufficient. Hence the issue for determination by the High Court was whether the Plaint was incurably defective.