Reinforces that false affidavits strike at the heart of the judicial process and may constitute contempt of court. Clarifies the balance of jurisdiction between superior courts and trial courts in contempt matters. Emphasizes judicial restraint by superior courts to avoid prejudicing pending litigation, thereby safeguarding the fairness and efficiency of trial proceedings. Reaffirms that contempt jurisdiction, though wide, must be exercised pragmatically and on a case-by-case basis, respecting the fact-finding authority of the trial forum.

-

 

Headnote

Nature of the Case – Application for contempt of court under Article 105(3) of the Constitution read with Section 183B of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, arising from allegations that a party to pending litigation had filed false affidavits containing deliberate misrepresentations, thereby attempting to mislead the Court and interfere with the administration of justice.

Facts

  • The petitioner alleged that the respondent, an officer of a financial institution, submitted two affidavits in District Court proceedings (Case No. 878/L/2020, Kaduwela DC) containing false and misleading statements.
  • It was contended that these falsehoods were not mere errors but deliberate and malicious misrepresentations, intended to prejudice the rights of the petitioner and subvert justice.
  • The affidavits concerned disputes over land acquired through a loan transaction involving Pramuka Bank and its successor entities. The controversy centered around allegations of encroachment and unlawful possession, as depicted in a survey plan produced by the respondent.
  • The petitioner, a senior attorney-at-law and President’s Counsel, maintained that such conduct constituted contempt of court, as it interfered with the judicial process by attempting to mislead the District Court.

Issues

1.   Whether filing a false affidavit in judicial proceedings amounts to contempt of court.

2.   Which court – the District Court or the Court of Appeal – has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the contempt allegation, given that the false affidavit was filed in the District Court.

3.   Whether the issuance of summons by the Court of Appeal at this stage would prejudice the pending trial at the District Court.

Law Considered

  • Article 105(3) of the Constitution – confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to punish for contempt of themselves and of other courts.
  • Sections 181 and 183B of the Civil Procedure Code – govern the form and scope of affidavits and provide that false statements made therein may be punished as contempt of court, in addition to liability under the Penal Code for false evidence.
  • Section 55(1) of the Judicature Act – empowers District Courts, Small Claims Courts, and Magistrates’ Courts to punish contempt committed before them or in their proceedings.
  • Case law: Meththanda v. Kushan Fernando (2006) 1 Sri LR 290 – clarifying the concurrent yet distinct jurisdiction of superior and lower courts in matters of contempt, particularly involving false affidavits.

Held

1.   False affidavits amount to contempt: Making knowingly false statements in an affidavit with intent to mislead the court is a direct interference with the administration of justice and therefore constitutes contempt of court.

2.   Jurisdiction exists but should be exercised with caution: While the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under Article 105(3) to entertain contempt committed in another court, primary responsibility for maintaining authority, efficiency, and integrity of proceedings lies with the court where the contempt was committed.

3.   Risk of prejudicing the trial: Issuing summons in this case would effectively require the Court of Appeal to make determinations on factual disputes relating to boundaries of land and encroachment, matters already pending in the District Court. Doing so could prejudice and interfere with the trial court’s fact-finding role.

4.   Proper forum: In the interest of efficiency, avoidance of conflicting determinations, and preservation of judicial hierarchy, the District Court is the proper forum to determine allegations of contempt arising from false affidavits filed in its own proceedings.

5.   Application dismissed: The Court of Appeal declined to issue a summons on the respondent and dismissed the application.

Significance

  • Reinforces that false affidavits strike at the heart of the judicial process and may constitute contempt of court.
  • Clarifies the balance of jurisdiction between superior courts and trial courts in contempt matters.
  • Emphasizes judicial restraint by superior courts to avoid prejudicing pending litigation, thereby safeguarding the fairness and efficiency of trial proceedings.
  • Reaffirms that contempt jurisdiction, though wide, must be exercised pragmatically and on a case-by-case basis, respecting the fact-finding authority of the trial forum.

 


READ JUDGMENT ONLINE - CLICK


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

-
Image
  TRUST - A presentation -  October 29, 2016 786 GALLELAW BLOGGER   [ many authorities cited in this document have been hyperlinked by the blogger to save the precious time of the reader]     "Constructive trust serves as the guardian of the oppressed when the rigidity of written law hinders the pursuit of justice. It embodies the flexibility and moral conscience of the legal system, ensuring that equity prevails where legal technicalities may fall short. By recognizing the rightful claims of those unjustly deprived, constructive trust provides a path to fairness and restores balance, offering hope and remedy to those wronged by the limitations of formal law." - GALLELAWBLOGGER     October 29, 2016   TRUST – synopsis of a presentation made to the District Judges on 24.8.2002 by A W A Salam at the auditorium of the Office of Judicial Service Commission presided over by Justices Udalagama Director of SLJI  ...
Read more

EQUITY SAVES A MAN AND HIS RESIDENCIAL HOUSE- CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST SUPREME COURT RECENT JUDGMENT ARJUNA OBEYSEKERA J

-
Image
  The plaintiff sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants for a declaration of title to the subject matter of the action and ejectment of a landed property. In the amended answer, the 2nd defendant admitted the execution of several deeds affecting the subject matter including one in favour of Odayan Kureishan, but claimed that Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff, came to hold the property in trust for him [ the 2nd Defendand]​​  The main issue was whether the beneficial interest in the property had been transferred to Odayan Kureishan or if the property was being held in trust for the 2nd  defendant by Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff. Essentially, the court had to determine if these transactions were actual sales or just loans with the second defendant still owning the property.  The District Court decided that the beneficial interest in the property had not been transferred to Odayan Kureishan. The court held that the prop...
Read more

some selected

-
Image
  Terms of Service · Privacy · Content Policy All Blogs MANAGE GALLELAW BLOGGER 1 minute ago PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER Sri Lanka Law Reports 2002 - Volume 2 , Page No - 128 *PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER* *(The blogger's understanding of the judgment is summarized as follows)* *CLICK ON ME* The defendants filed a petition seeking permission to appeal against the orders issued by the District Judge on January 19 and January 24, 2001. They also requested a stay of proceedings in DC Panadura case No. 2794/spl. Initially, the court granted a stay order on January 31, 2001, but later refused to extend it on April 6, 2001, as the dispute involved a right of way. The situation arose from the following facts: The District Judge, through his o...  read more GALLELAW BLOGGER 5 days ago Having exercised jurisdiction the Magistrate is not permitted to revisit the question of breach of peace. The Magistrate is clothed with the jurisdiction to ent...
Read more