The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction, whether by way of appeal, revision, or restitutio in integrum, to review judgments pronounced by a Provincial High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction.
2025 Present: P. Padman Surasena C.J., Mahinda Samayawardhena
J., and Sampath B. Abayakoon J.
FERNANDO v. PERERA
S.C.
Appeal No. 65/2025 — CA/RII/15/2022 — WP/HCCA/NEG/12/2021(F) — D.C. Negombo
3221/P
Date
Decided: 10 October 2025
This
case concerns the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and examines whether a
revision or restitutio in integrum application can be maintained against a
judgment of a Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal. It involves the
interpretation of Articles 138 and 154P of the Constitution, together with the
provisions of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19
of 1990 as amended. The central issue relates to the scope of concurrent and
exclusive appellate jurisdiction conferred on the respective courts and the
principle of finality in the appellate process.
Facts
The plaintiff, after obtaining a divorce decree, filed an action for partition of a property held in common. The District Court entered judgment in her favour. On appeal, the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal (Negombo) reversed that decision and dismissed the action. The plaintiff, instead of seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court within the statutory period, filed an application for revision and restitutio in integrum before the Court of Appeal on the 44ᵗʰ day. The defendant objected that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain such an application. The Court of Appeal overruled the objection. Leave to appeal was granted to the defendant on the question whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to review judgments of a Provincial High Court exercising appellate powers.
Held
The
Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction, whether by way of appeal, revision, or
restitutio in integrum, to review judgments pronounced by a Provincial High
Court exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Such
jurisdiction vests exclusively in the Supreme Court under section 9(a) of the
High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990, read with
Articles 138 and 154P of the Constitution.
Article
138 is merely an enabling provision which defines the jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeal, but does not confer an inherent or unrestricted right of appeal. Its
exercise is expressly made “subject to the provisions of the Constitution or of
any law.”
The filing of a revision application in the Court of Appeal against a judgment of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal is impermissible, since it would create a third tier of appellate review, contrary to the legislative intent of ensuring finality and expeditious justice. The only recourse lies by leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Principles and Precedents.
Martinv. Wijewardena (1989 2 Sri LR 409) Article 138 confers jurisdiction on the
Court of Appeal but does not create rights of appeal; such rights must be
statutory.
SwasthikaTextile Industries Ltd v. Thantrige Dayaratne (1993 2 Sri LR 348) Parliament may transfer appellate jurisdiction from the Court of Appeal to the High Court by ordinary legislation since Article 138 is not entrenched.
Weragamav. Eksath Lanka Wathu Kamkaru Samithiya (1994 1 Sri LR 293) – Entrenched jurisdictions (Articles 140–141) cannot be transferred by ordinary law; but Article 138 jurisdiction can.
Wickramasekerav. OIC, Ampara (2004 1 Sri LR 257) – The Supreme Court alone has appellate jurisdiction over judgments of Provincial High Courts exercising appellate functions.
Balaganeshan v. OIC, Seeduwa (SC/SPL/LA/79/2015) – The Provincial High Court and the Court of Appeal are coordinate courts in their respective appellate spheres; no hierarchy exists between them.
Gunaratne v. Indika Sampath (CA/PHC/APN/54/2013) – The Court of Appeal cannot sit in revision over a judgment of a Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal.
Ramalingamv. Parameswary (2000 2 Sri LR 340) – When concurrent jurisdiction is conferred by law, both courts stand on an equal footing; neither is superior.
Laksiri v. OIC, Anti-Vice Squad (2012 1 Sri LR 131) – The Court of Appeal cannot invoke its revisionary powers where statute confers exclusive appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
Held Further
Allowing revision in the Court of Appeal against judgments of Provincial High Courts would encourage forum shopping and cause conflict of jurisdiction between coordinate courts.
The legislative and constitutional scheme under Act No. 19 of 1990 and its amendments envisages two-tier appellate scrutiny only—District Court to Provincial High Court, and thereafter to the Supreme Court.
Judicial prudence demands finality in litigation, even if some orders remain uncorrected, echoing Cassim v. Government Agent, Batticaloa (1966 69 NLR 403).
Decision
1. Appeal
allowed.
2. Order
of the Court of Appeal set aside.
3. It
was declared that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain any
appeal, revision, or restitutio in integrum application against a judgment of a
Provincial High Court delivered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Comments
Post a Comment