Sooriya Enterprises (International) Ltd. v. Michael White and Company Ltd. – sllr 2002 volume 3 page 371

In the case between Sooriya Enterprises (International) Limited and Michael & Company Limited, the court addressed whether non-Christians, specifically Muslims, are required by the Oaths Ordinance to make an affirmation rather than an oath when submitting an affidavit. It was held that the language of section 5 of the Oaths Ordinance is permissive, not mandatory, granting non-Christians the choice to either swear or affirm. Reference was made to legislative history and the earlier decision in Rustomjee v. Khan, establishing that no legal compulsion exists to affirm rather than swear. The appeal was dismissed, and special leave to appeal was refused, clarifying the permissive scope of the statute.

Fernando J. — The findings established that section 5 of the Oaths Ordinance employs the wor