Sampath Kumara vs Ranjini – CA PHC APPEAL NO.102/2007-2013

In the case between K.M.P. Sampath Kumara (Petitioner/Appellant) and Godawatte Kankanamge Ranjini and another (Respondents), the court addressed whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed, given the appellant’s non-compliance with procedural requirements regarding brief fee payment and absence of representation. It was held that such non-compliance warranted rejection of the appeal, affirming the procedural rule that strict adherence to court directions regarding fees and appearance is essential for the prosecution of appeals. This determination was made with reference to established procedural requirements and reinforced the expectation that parties actively prosecute their appeals for judicial consideration.

A.W.A.Salam J. — The findings established that the appellant received adeq