GALLELAWBLOGGER

  SUPREME COURT Case Title: Jayasingha Arachchige Shermila Priyadarshani Silva and Jayasingha Arachchige Pasindu Hirushan Silva v. University Grants Commission and Others Case No: SC FR Application No: 216/2020 Court: Supreme Court of Sri Lanka Judges: Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, Justice K. Priyantha Fernando, Justice Sobhitha Rajakaruna Date Argued: 27/03/2025 Date Decided: 09/07/2025   Factual Background: The petitioners, Jayasingha Arachchige Shermila Priyadarshani Silva (first petitioner) and her brother, Jayasingha Arachchige Pasindu Hirushan Silva (second petitioner), filed an application before the Supreme Court alleging a severe incident of ragging that occurred on 06/03/2020. The second petitioner, a first-year student at the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, was injured during a social event organized by senior students. The injury, caused by a large backhoe tyre being rolled down a staircase, led to grievous head and chest injuries, including ...

  Headnote (Drawn by Galle Law Blogger)   Case: Ceylon Electricity Board v. Poyry Switzerland Limited Court: Supreme Court of Sri Lanka Case Numbers: SC/HC/LA No. 06/2020, SC/HC/LA No. 07/2020 Date of Judgment: 09-07-2025   Background: The petitioner, Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), filed two Leave to Appeal Applications seeking to challenge the judgment delivered by the Commercial High Court of Western Province, Colombo, in 2019. The High Court had consolidated two cases: Case No. 629/2017 and Case No. 294/2018, related to the enforcement and setting aside of an arbitral award dated 23-10-2017. The High Court allowed the enforcement of the arbitral award, but with restrictions on legal fees and compensation.   Issues: The respondent, Poyry Switzerland Limited, raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the applications, primarily due to the petitioner’s failure to comply with mandatory procedural rules as set out under Supre...

  Headnote drawn by GALLELAWBLOGGER   Supreme Court of Sri Lanka S.C. (Spl) L.A. Application No. 24/2024 C.A. Appeal No. 297 – 301/2014 High Court of Colombo Case No. HC 4027/07   Parties: Complainant-Respondent-Respondent: Hon. Attorney General Accused-Appellant-Petitioner: Mohammed Kamil Kuthubdeen (8th Accused)   Court: Janak De Silva, J., Mahinda Samayawardhena, J., Arjuna Obeyesekere, J. Counsel: Faisz Musthapha, PC with Upul Kumarapperuma, PC, Amila Perera for the 8th Accused Shanil Kularatne, PC, ASG with Ms. Maheshika Silva, DSG for the Complainant-Respondent   Date of Argument: 09.06.2025 Date of Decision: 11.07.2025   Background: The Petitioner, Mohammed Kamil Kuthubdeen, along with 13 other accused, was indicted by the Complainant for 34 counts related to aiding, abetting, conspiring, and misappropriating public funds under the Penal Code and the Public Property Act. After trial, the Petitioner was convicted ...

  Headnote Drawn by GaLLELawBlogger W. A. R. Don Dharmawardena Petitioner Vs D. M. Nalinasekara SC/APPEAL/04/2022   Background of the Judgment: The case revolves around an application for Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 13.12.2019 in case No. CA WRIT 406/2016. The petitioner, W. A. R. Don Dharmawardena, sought to contest the decision made under the Agrarian Development Act, No. 46 of 2000, where the Commissioner of Agrarian Development had ruled that the petitioner had obstructed a roadway claimed by the respondents. The petitioner, who owns land in Avissawella, argued that the land had been fenced off and no roadway or footpath existed. He claimed to have constructed a roadway for his own use, which he later allowed the respondents to use as a footpath. The respondents, who owned land to the south of the petitioner’s, contended that they had been using the road since 1951 for agricultural purposes. The Agrarian Developme...

Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER" Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Amarananda Rajapaksha v. Principal of Richmond College, Galle Fundamental Rights, Article 12(1) Constitution, School Admission, Arbitrary Decision, Lease Agreement, Deed of Gift, Chief Occupant Status, Unreasonableness and Arbitrariness The Petitioner, acting on behalf of his son, Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Janula Uthsara Rajapaksha, sought admission for his son to Grade 1 at Richmond College, Galle. The Petitioner had submitted documents, including a lease agreement, a deed of gift, and a special power of attorney, to demonstrate that he had been the "chief occupant" of a residence, a requirement for school admission. However, the 1st Respondent, the Principal and Chairman of the Appeal Board, rejected the documents and struck off the Petitioner's son's marks based on the argument that the Petitioner's residence had changed, thus disqualifying him under the Chief Occupant category. The P...

  Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER"   K.H. Lasantha Goonewardena v. Monetary Board of Sri Lanka The Petitioner, appointed by letter dated 09.02.2015 as Chairman and Director of the Lankaputhra Development Bank (LDBL), challenged the refusal of the Director of Bank Supervision (DBS) by letter dated 24.03.2016 (P13) to declare him a “fit and proper” person to hold office, and the Monetary Board’s subsequent rejection of his appeals (P18 and P19). The Petitioner alleged infringement of Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g), arguing that his appointment was valid under the Articles of Association, that he had disclosed no confidential information, and that the DBS lacked jurisdiction to remove him. The Respondents contended that the appointment was ultra vires as only the Secretary to the Treasury, not the Minister of Finance, could nominate and appoint Directors and the Chairman; that the Petitioner was guilty of misconduct including interference in day-to-day functions, imprope...

  Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER"   L.J.K. Hettiaratchi v. Commissioner General of Labour The Petitioners, former employees of Walker Sons & Co. Ltd., complained to the Commissioner General of Labour (CGOL) regarding non-payment of EPF and gratuity. After inquiry, the CGOL issued a determination on 08.03.2012 directing payment of dues. Subsequently, the CGOL initiated a further inquiry on the same complaints, citing the need to review the earlier decision. The Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash this decision and related reliefs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that administrative authorities may continue inquiries until fully satisfied. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the CGOL had power to revisit and vary a perfected order. Held (Janak De Silva J., Fernando CJ. and Kodagoda J. concurring): Once an administrative decision is validly made and perfected, the decision-maker becomes functus officio and canno...

  Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER"   Ceylon Electricity Board Independent Engineers’ Association v. Ceylon Electricity Board The Petitioners, comprising a trade union and individual Mechanical and Civil Engineers employed at the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), alleged infringement of their fundamental rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Their grievance arose from Circulars restricting eligibility for the posts of Chief Engineer at the Kukuleganga and Ukuwela Power Stations exclusively to Electrical Engineers. The Petitioners relied on documents (P6 and P7) claiming that the Board of Directors had decided to extend eligibility to Mechanical and Civil Engineers as well, thereby creating a legitimate expectation that such posts would be opened to them. They argued that the General Manager’s action in issuing Circular P8 confining eligibility to Electrical Engineers was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Respondents contended that no such Board decision ap...

  Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER"   Randunu Dewage Kingsley Wickremasinghe v. LOLC Finance PLC The Plaintiff, LOLC Finance PLC (formerly Lanka Orix Finance PLC), instituted proceedings in the Commercial High Court in 2015 to recover Rs. 8,417,358 with interest at 4% per month from the 1st Defendant, a shoe manufacturer who had earlier operated a cheque discounting (factoring) facility with LOLC Factors Ltd. The loan of Rs. 5,200,000 was granted under Agreement P3, executed on 24.03.2014, to settle the outstanding balance under the factoring facility. At the Defendant’s written request (P11), the proceeds were paid directly to LOLC Factors Ltd. The 1st Defendant paid only one installment and thereafter defaulted. He claimed he had never requested or received a loan, signed documents under duress, and did not understand the English contents of P2 and P3. The High Court, after trial, held in favour of the Plaintiff. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the validity ...

  Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER" Siyambalagahagedara Abdul Cader v. D.L.H.M. Sinnan Rei vindicatio, Identification of Corpus, Burden of Proof, Defendant’s Title, Timing of Acquisition, Relief beyond Plaintiff’s Failure The Plaintiffs instituted a rei vindicatio action in the District Court of Kandy in 1995, seeking declaration of title to the land “Gabadawatte” and eviction of the Defendant. The Defendant denied the claim and pleaded purchase of Lot No. 1 in Plan No. 7295 by Deed No. 15357 of March 1995, executed after the action had commenced, also seeking a declaration of title. The District Court, relying on survey evidence, held that the Plaintiffs had properly identified the land and established their title and rejected the Defendant’s plea of prescription, granting judgment for the Plaintiffs. On appeal, the Civil Appellate High Court of Kandy reversed, holding that the Plaintiffs had failed to identify the corpus and entering judgment in favour of the Defe...

Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER" Balangoda Plantations PLC v. Land Reform Commission Civil Procedure, Section 86(2) Civil Procedure Code, Default of Appearance, Reasonable Excuse, Abuse of Process, Setting Aside Ex parte Orders The Plaintiff, Balangoda Plantations PLC, instituted proceedings in the District Court to restrain the Land Reform Commission (LRC) from handing over the Agratenna division of Ury Estate, which had been leased to the Plaintiff, to the National Gem and Jewellery Authority for gemming purposes. When the matter was called on 21.10.2008, the 1st Defendant (LRC) failed to appear, and the case was fixed ex parte. The LRC later applied under section 86(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to have the order vacated, claiming its legal officer had mistakenly gone to Court No. 8 instead of Court No. 1 on account of confusion in the case number and advice from a court clerk. The District Court refused to set aside the ex parte order, holding that no valid excuse had...

  Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER" Maddage Semapala v. Devika Weerakoon Partition Action, Interpretation of Deeds, Construction of Deed of Gift, Pedigree and Share Devolution, Burden of Proof, Non-Answering of Issues, Approbation and Reprobation The Plaintiff instituted a partition action in 1986 before the District Court of Horana, seeking division of the land “Indigahagodalla” at Labugama, claiming 87/288 shares (80 perches). His case rested on two chains of title: (i) (i) (i) through a deed from Abaya Weerakoon (P18), not disputed, and (ii) through inheritance rights of Arnolis’s descendants, supported by two deeds, P16 and P17 executed in 1980. The central issue concerned the interpretation of Deed No. 19977 of 1906 (P15), whereby Arnolis, who held 7/12 shares of the corpus, conveyed land to his son Nomis and nephews Themis and Liveris. The Plaintiff contended that P15 transferred only 1/3 of Arnolis’s entitlement, leaving 2/3 to devolve by inheritance to his daughter ...

 Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER" The Superintendent, Troup Estate v. Ceylon Estate Staffs’ Union Labour Law, Termination of Employment, Domestic Inquiry, Misconduct, Admission of Liability, Compensation versus Reinstatement, Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa, Burden of Proof, Loss of Confidence The workman, a Junior Assistant Field Officer, was entrusted with the distribution of flour to estate workers. Following shortages of 101 kg in July 2008 and 110 kg in August 2008, a domestic inquiry found him guilty of serious misconduct, including falsification of records and misappropriation. He admitted responsibility for the shortage of 210 kg and agreed to repay the loss by deductions from his salary. His services were thereafter terminated. The Labour Tribunal held the termination unjust and unfair, awarding reinstatement with compensation of Rs. 467,000. The High Court affirmed. On further appeal, the employer argued that the findings of misconduct and the admiss...

  Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER" Mohamed Uvais Mohamed Rushdi v. Seylan Bank Limited Commercial Law, Banking, Guarantee Bonds, Continuing Guarantee, Winding up proceedings, Maintainability of action, Liability of Guarantor The Plaintiff Bank advanced a term loan of USD 806,842 to the 1st Defendant Company. Upon default, the Bank sued both the Company and its Managing Director, the 2nd Defendant, who had executed a Guarantee Bond in 1999 renouncing the beneficium ordinis and undertaking joint and several liability. At trial, the Bank proved the outstanding sum of USD 781,842 through documents and testimony. The 2nd Defendant neither led evidence nor disproved liability. The High Court held him personally liable under the continuing guarantee. On appeal to the Supreme Court, two questions of law arose: Whether the Bank could maintain the action against the 2nd Defendant after submitting its claim to the Liquidator in the winding up of the Company. Whether the Ba...

 Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER" M.B.A. Systems (Pvt) Ltd. v. Virginia Perera The Petitioner instituted proceedings in the Commercial High Court of Colombo under sections 224 and 225 of the Companies Act, No. 7 of 2007, alleging oppression and mismanagement of the 1st Respondent Company. Pending determination, the Court issued an interim order restraining the Respondents from preventing the Petitioner from acting as a director of the Company. The Petitioner thereafter complained that the Respondents had wilfully disobeyed the interim order, and sought punishment for contempt. The 1st Respondent objected in limine, contending that the Commercial High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain contempt committed ex facie curiae, since (a) it was not a superior court of record, and (b) the Companies Act contained no express provision granting such jurisdiction. The High Court overruled the objection and decided to proceed. On appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave on the questi...

The Plaintiff instituted an action in the District Court of Tissamaharama seeking a declaration of entitlement to possess land in terms of Grant No. මෝ/ප්‍ර/26102, ejectment of the Defendants therefrom, and damages. The Grant, issued under the Land Development Ordinance, conferred upon the Plaintiff possession of one acre of land. However, Plan No. 50755 prepared for trial depicted 2 Acres, 2 Roods and 17 Perches , exceeding the extent described in the Grant. Despite the Divisional Secretary explicitly informing him of his entitlement to only one acre, the Plaintiff pursued possession of the larger extent. The District Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to one acre from the northern boundary of Plan X and ordered ejectment of the Defendants from that portion. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the judgment but amended it to hold that the Plaintiff was entitled to the entire extent depicted in Plan X. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended that the Plaintif...