Rupasinghe v. Madatti – sllr 1994 volume 2 page 161

In the case between Rupasinghe (plaintiff-appellant) and Madatti (defendant-respondent, as substituted by his widow), the court addressed the interpretation and application of the Emergency (Rehabilitation of Affected Property, Business or Industries) Regulations with respect to whether the premises constituted “affected property,” the validity and effect of the REPIA authorisation, and the status of subsequent documents concerning title. It was held that the REPIA authorisation issued to the defendant based on misrepresentation did not constitute a declaration under regulation 9 nor alter the legal status of the disputed property, and that documents purporting to divest title did not satisfy formal requirements under the regulations. The principle reaffirmed is that statutory formalities