The court found that the affidavit of service relied upon by the plaintiff was materially defective as it failed to indicate the time of service and did not specify who identified the defendant to the process server. The process server did not state that he personally knew the defendant, and there was no evidence that the person served was indeed the defendant. These omissions violated the mandatory requirements of Order 5 Rule 15(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. As a result, the court held that the purported service was invalid, and all orders made pursuant to such service, including the ex-parte injunction orders of 22 September 2015, must be set aside. The court did not address the substantive merits of the plaint or whether the injunction had lapsed by operation of law, as the application succeeded solely on the ground of defective service.