Senatileke v. Attorney General and Another – sllr 1998 volume 3 page 290

In the case between Senatileke (plaintiff) and the Attorney General and Another (defendants), the court addressed the issue of whether the father of a convicted accused possessed locus standi to challenge the High Court’s judgment, findings, conviction, and sentence through a revision application. It was determined that the father was not a person aggrieved by the decision, and therefore lacked legal standing to seek such relief. The findings established that the father’s grievance did not pertain to a legally recognized personal detriment, and the remedy is reserved for the accused himself. The decision reaffirmed the principle that revisionary jurisdiction is restricted and not to be availed at the instance of third parties, referencing established case law such as Albert v. Wedamulla, A