where Phadke J, held that an aggrieved person was a person who has suffered a legal grievance. He contended that the applicant manufactured goods which were subject of the same mark which it registered in its home country as proved by annexture “E” to the affidavit in support. Further that the applicant also sold its goods in Uganda where the respondent registered the same mark and yet it neither manufactured nor dealt in those goods. On another note, counsel for the applicant challenged the documents relied upon by the respondent for lack of authentication thereby falling short of the requirements of section 77 of the Evidence Act. He prayed that the documents be disregarded and the orders sought by this application granted. Counsel for the respondent sought leave of court to respond to new matters that were raised in the submission in rejoinder and he was allowed to do so. In his response he defended the affidavit in rebuttal. He also submitted on the admissibility of the documents the respondent was relying on arguing that materials from the internet were now admissible under the Electronic Transactions Act No. 8 of 2011. He also referred to the case of La Consortium & Vending CC t/a La Enterprises v MTN Service Provide (PTY) Ltd No. 2004/20602, South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg where a similar issue was entertained and court held that data messages were admissible and due evidential weight accorded to it. He prayed that the affidavit in rebuttal and the annextures thereto be relied upon in deciding the matter in controversy between the parties. He also prayed that the application be dismissed with costs. Upon looking at the notice of motion, the affidavits and the documents attached thereto and the submissions, there are some preliminary issues to do with procedure, evidence and locus standi that need to determine before the substantive issues. The respondent criticized the procedure used by the applicant and also challenged the affidavit in support as being materially defective, null and void. The applicant also challenged the affidavit in rebuttal and the authenticity of the annextures attached thereto as well as the annextures to the affidavit in reply. I will start with the contention that this matter should have been brought by plaint other than by notice of motion. I really failed to see the basis of this contention. Section 45 of the Trademarks Act 2010 provides that, “…, the court may, on application in writing…” Similarly, section 46 provides that, “….on application to court by an aggrieved person…” The mode/procedure for bringing applications is known under the Civil Procedure Rules. Either it is by summons in chambers where it is specifically provided for or by notice of motion under Order 52 rule 1 where the procedure is not specifically provided for. The rules also allow deponents of affidavits to be cross-examined if the parties so wish. Counsel for the respondent could have exercised that right if the respondent really wanted oral evidence to be on record. Otherwise I do not find any problem with the procedure adopted by the applicant and I accordingly rule that it was a proper procedure. As regards the affidavits, I will start with the affidavit in support and the affidavit in rejoinder which were sworn by the Managing Director of a donee company that doubled as the applicant’s agent in Uganda. I have read the contents of the said affidavits and the arguments of both