Iluktenna Arachchilage Piyasena v. Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Kumarihamy – CA CASE NO. 02/2016-2016

In the case between Iluktenna Arachchilage Piyasena (Plaintiff) and Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Kumarihamy, succeeded by Rajapakse Mudiyanselage Karunaratne (Defendant), the legal issue centered on whether the Court of Appeal possessed jurisdiction, by way of restitutio in integrum under Article 138(1) of the Constitution, to review a matter involving prescriptive title after the Supreme Court had refused leave to appeal on the same issue. It was held that the Court of Appeal lacked such jurisdiction once the Supreme Court, having given both parties an opportunity to present arguments, had refused leave to appeal. The principle reaffirmed is that restitutio in integrum is an extraordinary discretionary remedy limited to reviewing decisions of courts or tribunals subordinate to the Court of App