Supreme Court Cases

Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

SC Appeal No. 67/2018

Land Lease Dispute 📅 13-09-2024

👥 Parties

Petitioner-Appellants

  • • Senaka Kumar Weerarattna
  • • Lakshman Jayaraj Kumar Hettiaratchi
  • • Trustees of the German Dharmaduta Society

Respondent-Respondents

  • • S. J. Pathirana (Land Commissioner)
  • • Lalith Kannangara (Provincial Land Commissioner)
  • • George Kulatunga (Divisional Secretary)
  • • D. L. T. Mendis & Sri Kalyani Dharma Peramuna

📋 Background

1955: Lanka Dharmaduta Society granted 99-year lease in Colombo

Later: Society renamed to German Dharmaduta Society

1992: Sri Kalyani Dharma Peramuna took possession

2001: Divisional Secretary informed non-renewal of lease

2002: Land Commissioner published notice for new lease to Sri Kalyani

Process: Writ Petition dismissed → Supreme Court Appeal

⚖️ Key Issues

  • Whether Petitioners had locus standi to bring appeal
  • Whether principles of natural justice were violated
  • Whether decision to lease to Sri Kalyani was reasonable

🏛️ Decision

Appeal Dismissed

  • • Questioned locus standi of inactive society trustees
  • • Found adequate notice provided via Gazette
  • • Accepted reasons for non-renewal due to inactivity

💬 Key Quote

"German Dharmaduta Society had neither been in possession nor conducted its activities in this premises for a long period of time."
— Justice P. Padman Surasena

SC Appeal 13/2014

Contract Breach 📅 08-10-2024

👨‍⚖️ Judges Panel

• Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J. • E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J. • A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J.

👥 Parties

Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants

Aquamarine International (Pvt) Ltd. and Chairman Nihal Ananda Malavi Pathirana

Defendant-Appellant-Respondent

The Attorney General of Sri Lanka (The State)

📈 Case Progression

District Court

Ruled in favor of Aquamarine. Awarded Rs. 9,120,600 total damages (costs, profit loss, goodwill loss)

High Court

Upheld contract finding but disallowed profit and goodwill damages. Only costs remained

Supreme Court

Dismissed appeal. Upheld High Court decision on damages. Ordered Rs. 50,000 costs to State

🔍 Key Findings & Legal Principles

Loss of Profit

Letters purporting to be export orders insufficient without proof of actual loss and direct causal link. "He who asserts must prove" principle applied.

Loss of Reputation

Reputational damage claims must be grounded in demonstrable financial loss. No punitive element involved for commercial entities.

💬 Key Quote

"Financial losses incurred by loss of reputation caused by a breach of contract is a patrimonial loss and not a compensation for 'pain or suffering'. There is no punitive element involved."
— Justice Aluwihare (cited by Justice Fernando)

SC/APPEAL/71/2023 & 72/2023

Partition Action 📅 09-10-2024

👨‍⚖️ Judges Panel

• Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena • Hon. Justice Kumudini Wickremasinghe • Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena

👥 Parties

Petitioner-Appellant

Lokumanage Sumitra Perera

Defendant-Respondents

Dissanayakage Dona Leelawathie, et al.

📋 Background

This case involved a protracted partition action started in 1997. The central issue was whether a defendant substituted late in the proceedings (after the death of the original defendant) could file a new statement of claim and present evidence, even though the original defendant had not done so.

⚖️ Key Legal Principles

  • Rights of Substituted Parties: A substituted party steps into the shoes of the original and cannot claim superior rights or take an inconsistent position.
  • Primacy of Partition Law: In partition cases, the Partition Law No. 21 of 1977 takes precedence over the Civil Procedure Code.
  • Clarity in Judgments: Judicial decisions must be clear and specific to avoid ambiguity and uphold the rule of law.

🏛️ Decision

Appeal Allowed

  • • High Court judgment allowing the new claim was set aside.
  • • District Court's original order rejecting the claim was affirmed.
  • • A substituted defendant cannot introduce new claims late in the trial.
  • • However, claims for improvements by the original party must be protected.

💬 Key Quote

"The 9(a) defendant who was substituted in place of the deceased 9th defendant, cannot claim rights superior to those the 9th defendant would have had if she were alive."

SC/FR/402/2013

Fundamental Rights / Administrative Law 📅 09-10-2024

👥 Parties

Petitioner

Hewa Kulasuriyage Anura Nimal (former Excise Inspector)

Respondents

Commissioner General of Excise, Public Service Commission Members, & Attorney General

📋 Background

The Petitioner was promoted to Excise Inspector in 2006. Years later, following a complaint from another officer, the Public Service Commission (PSC) retroactively applied criteria related to salary increments, which had been temporarily delayed but fully paid years earlier. Based on this, the PSC annulled the Petitioner's promotion without giving him a hearing, leading to a fundamental rights application under Article 12(1) (right to equality).

⚖️ Key Issues

  • Retroactive Application of Rules: Applying promotion criteria in a manner that penalized the petitioner for a past, resolved issue.
  • Natural Justice: The petitioner's promotion was annulled without providing him an opportunity to be heard.
  • Legitimate Expectation: The petitioner had a legitimate expectation to continue in his role after serving for several years.

🏛️ Decision

Application Allowed

  • • The decision to annul the promotion was quashed.
  • • The Court found the decision violated the Petitioner's rights under Article 12(1).
  • • Emphasized the importance of fairness and the right to be heard in administrative decisions.

💬 Key Quote

"The Court found the decision in P22 to be 'arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable,' violating Article 12(1) of the Constitution."
— Supreme Court Judgment Summary

Nandana Kumarage Sujeewa v. The State

Criminal Appeal / Alibi Defence 📅 09-10-2024

👨‍⚖️ Judges Panel

• Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena • Hon. Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara • Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena

🔍 Key Principles on Alibi Defence

Timely Disclosure

An alibi must be disclosed early (during investigation or pre-trial) to be credible. A late alibi, raised for the first time in court, is viewed as less persuasive and suspect.

Burden of Proof

While the prosecution has the ultimate burden to prove guilt, the accused carries the burden of proving their alibi to a standard that raises a reasonable doubt about their presence at the crime scene.

Consciousness of Guilt

A fabricated alibi, while not direct proof of guilt, can be used as evidence of a "consciousness of guilt," which strengthens the prosecution's case and undermines the accused's credibility.

Fair Trial

The presumption of innocence remains paramount. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of weaknesses in the defence.

🏛️ Decision

Appeal Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the alibi defence was rightly rejected by the lower courts due to its late introduction and lack of credibility.

💬 Key Quote

"It would be unlikely, if not improbable, for an accused who was genuinely elsewhere at the time of the offence to withhold such a defence and wait until criminal proceedings are instituted to disclose it for the first time during trial."
— Samayawardhena, J.

Land Dispute (Ukku Banda Grant)

Land Ownership / L.D.O. 📅 04-09-2024

👥 Parties

Plaintiff-Appellant

Younger son of Ukku Banda (Nominated Successor)

Defendant-Respondent

Elder son of Ukku Banda (Alleged Encroacher)

📈 Case Progression

District Court

Dismissed the Plaintiff's case, finding he failed to prove the encroached portion was part of his land grant.

Civil Appeal High Court

Upheld the District Court's judgment.

Supreme Court

Dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower courts' findings on the failure of proof.

🔍 Central Finding

The entire case failed on a fundamental point: the Plaintiff-Appellant could not prove that the specific land portion occupied by the Defendant-Respondent was actually part of the larger land parcel granted to him under the Land Development Ordinance (L.D.O.). Questions of law regarding the L.D.O. were therefore irrelevant.

🏛️ Decision

Appeal Dismissed

The appeal was dismissed as the Supreme Court agreed with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

💬 Key Quote

"The District Court came to a clear finding that the Plaintiff-Appellant has failed to prove that the land described in the second schedule to the Plaint is part of the land described in the first schedule, with which this Court agrees."

SC/APPEAL/88/2018

Rei Vindicatio Action 📅 07-10-2024

👨‍⚖️ Judges Panel

• Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J. • K. Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J. • A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J.

📋 Background (Chain of Title)

The Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a rei vindicatio action to claim title and eject the Defendant-Respondent. Their claim was based on a chain of deeds. However, the origin of their title (a 1935 deed) only accounted for a 3/10 share of the land, which was originally co-owned by six siblings. The Appellants failed to prove they had acquired the remaining shares.

🔍 Key Legal Findings

Failure to Prove Title

In a rei vindicatio action, the plaintiff bears the absolute burden of proving their title. The Appellants' deeds did not demonstrate ownership of the entire land, so their claim failed.

No New Claims on Appeal

The Appellants tried to argue for a declaration of title for their undivided share on appeal. The Court rejected this, as a new claim cannot be introduced for the first time at the appeal stage.

🏛️ Decision

Appeal Dismissed

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal due to the Appellants' failure to prove title to the entire property.

💬 Key Quote

"The Court rejected this argument, stating the Appellants failed to present this claim in the lower courts and, therefore, could not raise it for the first time on appeal."
— Judgment Summary (citing Talagala v Gangodawila)

SC (FR) Application No. 08/2019

Fundamental Rights / Pension Dispute 📅 12-09-2024

👨‍⚖️ Judges Panel

• S. Thurairaja, PC, J. • A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J. • K. Priyantha Fernando, J.

👥 Parties

Petitioner

Dr. Pradeep Kariyawasam

Respondents

Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) & Officials

📋 Core Dispute

The Petitioner, a retired Chief Medical Officer, refused to vacate his official living quarters after retirement, arguing his wife was eligible. The Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) withheld his pension payments pending the vacation of the premises and settlement of penal rent. The Petitioner claimed this action was arbitrary and violated his fundamental right to equality under Article 12(1).

⚖️ Court's Findings

  • The Petitioner's occupation of the quarters post-retirement was "unlawful and unauthorized."
  • The delay in pension was due to the Petitioner's own non-compliance with contractual obligations, not a disciplinary action.
  • The CMC's actions were not unreasonable or in bad faith; thus, no violation of Article 12(1) was established.

🏛️ Decision

Application Dismissed

The application was dismissed. The Court instructed the CMC to process the Petitioner's pension after deducting any penal rent owed for the period of unlawful occupation.

💬 Key Quote

"From the facts before us, it is amply clear the Petitioner's occupation of the said premises following his retirement was unlawful."