LEGAL PRINCIPLE: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory Applications – Distinction Between Pleadings and Affidavit Evidence in Proof

This principle establishes a critical distinction between two types of written assertions in litigation. Pleadings (statements of claim, defences, replies) are formal documents that define the issues and structure of the case, but mere assertions in pleadings do not constitute evidence. They are allegations requiring proof through testimony, documents, or other admissible evidence at trial. Unproven pleadings have no evidentiary value unless specifically admitted by the opposing party, in which case the admission makes proof unnecessary. Affidavits, conversely, are sworn or affirmed statements that constitute evidence because they involve testimonial declarations under oath subject to perjury sanctions. Facts deposed to in affidavits may be relied upon by courts in interlocutory proceedings where oral testimony is not taken. The distinction has important practical implications: (1) parties cannot win cases based solely on pleadings without proving their allegations through proper evidence; (2) affidavit evidence, while admissible in interlocutory matters, may be challenged through counter-affidavits or cross-examination if required; (3) courts must distinguish between defining issues (role of pleadings) and proving facts (requiring evidence). This principle prevents parties from conflating procedural documents with proof, ensures proper evidentiary foundations for decisions, and recognizes that while pleadings frame disputes, only evidence resolves them.