He concluded that for reasons stated above, court should find the applicant’s affidavit materially defective, null and void and dismiss the application with costs. Counsel for the applicant in rejoinder, on procedure and evidence, submitted that sections 45 and 46 of the Trademarks Act, 2010 provide for application to court and under Order 52 rule 1 of the CPR applications whose procedures are not provided for shall be by notice of motions. He contended that, that was the procedure provided for by the legislature and it was not upon the respondent to suggest otherwise. On the contention that the affidavit in support were on matters not within the deponent’s knowledge, counsel for the applicant contended that matters which the deponent swore to were well within his experiences as business agents of the applicant. He argued that the deponent was directly involved as to confirm the contents of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 because they concern the market situation in Uganda where the deponent’s business is based. He referred to the case of MB Nadala v Father Lyding [1963] 1 E.A 706, where Sir Udo Udoma CJ, held that since the content of the affidavit related to personal activities of the deponent, they were facts within his knowledge. As regards paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit in support, counsel for the applicant submitted that allegations that they were facts not within the deponent’s knowledge would be taking a very narrow and wrong view of what amounts to knowledge. He argued that knowledge was capable of being obtained in so many ways as was observed by Mukasa J, in Green watch v Attorney General and Another (2003) 1 E.A. 87 that knowledge can be acquired through human senses like seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or touching followed by understanding and perceiving what one has sensed. He contended that after years of dealing together, the deponent was provided with the original and certified copies of certification of incorporation of the applicant company as well as certificate of registration of its trademark that could be seen, touched or perceived by the deponent thereby making him knowledgeable. He submitted that the case of Charles Kabunga (Supra) was distinguishable from this one in that the tripartite relationship of advocates, their clients and the court was at play in that the advocate could not be a witness and counsel in the same matter and could not depone on especially contentious matters. He contended that the position was different for agent-principal relationship which involves promoting one another’s interest and as such full disclosure is required. He further contended that there was no rule against agents swearing affidavits in representative capacity but on the contrary authorities suggest that a person in representative capacity could swear an affidavit on matters of another if they were aware of the facts. He cited the case of Joy Kaingana per John Kaingana v Dabo Boubon (1986) HCB 59 to buttress this argument. As regards the contention that the applicant lacked locus standi to bring this application because it is not an aggrieved person, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was clearly affected by the registration of the respondent’s mark and as such it was an aggrieved person who has suffered great economic loss. He referred to the case of Yusuf v Nokrach (1971) EA 104