Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Saleem Marsoof, J. This is an appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal dated on the 3rd January 2013 by which the said court refused an application made by the Intervenient-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) to intervene into CA (Writ) Application number 411/2012 which had been filed by the then incumbent Chief Justice Hon. (Dr). Upathissa Atapattu Bandarnayake Wasala Muduyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandarnayake, (hereinafter referred to as Hon. (Dr.) Bandarnayake) against Hon. Chamal Rajapakse, Speaker of Parliament, and 12 others, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the report and findings of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) which had been appointed by the 1st Respondent-Respondent-Respondent to consider the allegations made against Hon. (Dr.) Bandarnayake, and an order in the nature of prohibition to restrain further steps being taken pursuant to the notice of resolution in terms of Article 107(2)and (3) of the Consti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Wanasundera, PC. J. This appeal has come up to the Supreme Court as an appeal from a judgment of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden at Colombo and exercising Civil Commercial Jurisdiction, as provided in Section 5 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1996. The judgment of the aforementioned Commercial High Court of Colombo is dated 09.09.2010. The Plaintiff-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent-Bank) is the National Development Bank PLC of No. 40, Navam Mawatha, Colombo 2 and the 1st and 2nd Defendant-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) are Nelka Rupasinghe (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Appellant and Ahangama Gamage Nandawathie (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd Appellant) from Ahangama. The facts of this case play an important role in deciding this appeal and as such I will place them here in summary form. The 1st Appellant became the owner of Lot 6 in Plan 1243 of an extent of 34A 0R 5P a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Sathyaa Hettige P.C. J: This is an appeal from a Judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of North Western Province holden at Kurunegala delivered on 5th November 2008. LEAVE TO APPEAL The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the 27th March 2009 on the following questions of law ; (i) Have the learned High Court Judges of the Civil Appellate High Court erred in law by holding that the petitioner has failed to identify the corpus of the said District Court action in arriving at their final conclusion? Have the learned High Court Judges erred in law by failing to consider the evidence given by the Surveyor with regard to the identity of the corpus in arriving at their findings? The plaintiff respondent petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) instituted a rei vindicatio action in the District Court of Kurunegala by the plaint dated 06.09.1994 for the following reliefs: (I) for a declaration of title that the petitioner is the owner of the land morefully described in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal under and in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. SALEEM MARSOOF J. By its orders dated 30th April 2013 and 28th June 2013, this Court has granted special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 7th January 2013 on two questions of "public or general importance" within the meaning of the proviso to Article 128 (2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution of Sri Lanka" or "the Constitution"). These questions concern the ambit of the writ jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, in particular, whether the Court of Appeal had the power to issue a writ of certiorari in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution with respect to proceedings and actions of Parliament or of a Parliamentary Select Committee within the process of impeachment o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. TILAKAWARDANE, J A Fundamental Rights application was instituted by the Petitioner before this Court on the 24th of July 2009, against the 1st to the 7th Respondents. The action was initiated for the breach of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution in Articles 11, 12(1) and 13(1), however, during arguments, Counsel agreed to limit their arguments, on the 29th of October 2013, to the breach of Article 11 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this Court heard arguments with regards to the alleged breach of Article 11 of the Petitioner. The events that preceded this application as alleged by the Petitioner are that, on the 20th of June 2009 the Petitioner's brother, one Herath Mudiyanselage Dilan Mahesh Herath organized a musical show in the Dummalasuriya Public Playground from 8:00pm to 10:00pm. The Petitioner was a member of the organizing c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal. TILAKAWARDANE.J Leave was granted on 02.05.2011 on the questions of law set out in paragraph 16 [a], [b], [c] and [d] of the Petition of the 1st and 2A Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellants dated 13.12.2010. However, at the commencement of arguments, the parties agreed that the only issue that they wished to make submissions on was regarding the question of whether the Defendant-Appellant-Petitioners had established their claim of prescription to the corpus. The Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent [hereinafter referred to as the Respondent] instituted action seeking a Declaration of Title to the lands described in Schedules 2 and 3 of the Plaint dated 25.02.1998, and a further order of ejectment. This case (S.C. Appeal No. 51/2011) relates to a block purchased by the Plaintiff-Respondent, an adjacent block of land was purchased by her brother who was the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent in S.C. Appeal No. 52/2011 and both lots were de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Sathyaa Hettige P.C. J The petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) sought a writ of Certiorari and a writ of Mandamus in the Court of Appeal to quash the declaration published in the government gazette No. 1510/2 dated 13th August 2007 and to compel the second respondent-petitioner to declare the petitioner respondent as an elected member of the Harispaththuwa Pradeshiya Sabhawa who contested on the nominations list of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance at the Local Government Elections held on 30th March 2006. On 10.11.2009 the Court of Appeal allowed the application and issued a writ of Certiorari and quashed the decision contained in Extra Ordinary Gazette dated 13th August 2007 marked P 3 and issued a Writ of Mandamus on the 2nd respondent “petitioner directing to appoint the respondent as a member of the Harispattuwa Pradeshiya Sabha as prayed for in prayer œC? of the petition filed in the Court of Appeal with costs. The 1st respondent - peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
In the matter of an appeal in terms of Section 754(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. SATHYAA HETTIGE PC J The defendant Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has filed this appeal from the judgment of the Commercial High Court dated 10.05.2007 which was entered in favour of the plaintiff respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) exercising civil jurisdiction of the High Court of the Western Province as prayed for in the plaint. The appeal has been filed based on the following grounds. a) The Judgment dated 10/05/2007 is contrary to law and the facts in this case b) The learned High Court Judge has disregarded the fact that the basic term of the lease agreement between the parties, that is the delivery of the leased article, had been fulfilled by the respondent. c) The learned High Court Judge has erred in law by holding that the appellant is estopped from taking up the position that some of the documents marked by the respondent were not properly listed and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Wanasundera, PC.J. In this case leave was granted to the Defendant-Respondent”Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) from the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Western Province dated 26.03.2010 on the questions of law set out in paragraph 15(d) of the Petition dated 07.05.2010 which reads as follows:- 15(d) œDid the High Court err in not holding that the Petitioner had attorned to the Respondent and is the tenant of the Respondent in respect of the premises in suit?. The Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) instituted action in the District Court of Colombo against the Appellant seeking an order to eject the Appellant from the premises bearing No. 111, New Chetty Street, Colombo 13, for the reason that the Appellant had failed and neglected to accept the Respondent as the landlord with effect from 1st of January 2005. The Appellant had been the tenant of S.R.G. Corea at one time and who died later on. Her c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Wanasundera, PC.J. In this case, a preliminary objection was taken up by the Plaintiff-Respondent- Respondents with regard to non compliance of Rule 30(1) of the Supreme Court Rules by the Defendant-Appellant-Appellants. Rule 30(1) reads:- œNo party to an appeal shall be entitled to be heard, unless he has previously lodged five copies of his written submissions [hereinafter referred to as submissions) complying with the provisions of this rule?. This Court granted Leave to Appeal to the Appellants, from the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of Ratnapura on 28.10.2011. According to Rule 30(6), the Appellant should lodge his written submissions within 6 weeks of the grant of leave to appeal. Rule 30(6) reads:- œThe appellant shall within six weeks of the grant of special leave to appeal, or leave to appeal, as the case may be, lodge his submissions at the Registry and shall forthwith give notice thereof to each respondent by serving on him a copy of such submissions...
Tag this Judgment!