Loku Kumarage Janidu Wathsara vs S. Akbar, Sub Inspector of Police and others ↗

📅 Date: 2025-11-17  | 
📄 Case No: SC FRA 79/2019  | 
🏛 Court: Supreme court

Open Full Judgment ↗

⚖ Nature of the Case

Arrest of a minor,Assault,Locus standi,CYPO

📘 Case Background

In the matter of Loku Kumarage Janidu Wathsara, represented initially by his mother and uncle, against S. Akbar (1st Respondent), the Officer-in-Charge (2nd Respondent), and the Superintendent of Police (3rd Respondent), the court addressed alleged violations of fundamental rights under Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) of the Constitution. The court held that no sufficient merit was found to conclude that the petitioner’s fundamental rights were violated, reaffirming the principle that arrests based on sufficient reasons are lawful. This decision relied on the interpretation of Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution and the definitions within the Children and Young Person’s Ordinance (CYPO) then in force, emphasizing that the petitioner, being 17 years and 2 months old at the time of …

🚀 Access AI Pazz for Extended Insights

• Laws Referred 📚
• Citations ⚖️
• Detailed Analysis 📝
• Head Notes 📰
• AI Chat 🤖 and many more tools

Galla Arachchige Piyathilaka and others Vs The Hon. Attorney General ↗

📅 Date: 2025-11-17  | 
📄 Case No: CA HCC 132-133-24  | 
🏛 Court: Court of appeal

Open Full Judgment ↗

⚖ Nature of the Case

Murder conviction, Insufficient evidence

📘 Case Background

The court addressed the issue of an appeal against conviction and death sentence for murder, specifically concerning the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, witness credibility, identification, and the establishment of common intention. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reaffirming the principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to the sole irresistible conclusion of guilt and that common intention requires a premeditated plan and active participation. This decision emphasized the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence.

B. Sasi Mahendran, J. – The prosecution’s case, relying solely on circumstantial evidence, was meticulously analyzed. S …

🚀 Access AI Pazz for Extended Insights

• Laws Referred 📚
• Citations ⚖️
• Detailed Analysis 📝
• Head Notes 📰
• AI Chat 🤖 and many more tools

S.C.B. Jayasinghe and others vs. Kajima Corporation and others ↗

📅 Date: 2025-11-19  | 
📄 Case No: SC CHC Appeal 104/2018  | 
🏛 Court: Supreme court

Open Full Judgment ↗

⚖ Nature of the Case

Payment dispute, Oral contract, Unjust enrichment

📘 Case Background

The case between C.A & Co. and Kajima Kumagai Hazama Joint Venture (KKH) and Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) addressed whether Rs. 68 million was due from CEB to KKH for construction work performed by the Plaintiffs, and if KKH was unjustly enriched by refusing to pay the Plaintiffs Rs. 55 million. The court held that the Plaintiffs failed to establish their claims of unjust enrichment or dishonest misappropriation/fraud on a balance of probability, and could not invoke the presumption of adverse inference against the Defendants due to insufficient foundational evidence, reaffirming the principle that claims require substantial documentary proof. This decision relied on the principles governing evidence, particularly Section 114 illustration (f) of the Evidence Ordinance, emphasizing that t …

🚀 Access AI Pazz for Extended Insights

• Laws Referred 📚
• Citations ⚖️
• Detailed Analysis 📝
• Head Notes 📰
• AI Chat 🤖 and many more tools

Buddhika Prasanna Liyanage vs Hon. Attorney General ↗

📅 Date: 2025-11-19  | 
📄 Case No: CA HCC 0179/2024  | 
🏛 Court: Court of appeal

Open Full Judgment ↗

⚖ Nature of the Case

Heroin trafficking, Chain of custody failure

📘 Case Background

In the matter of the Accused-Appellant and the Prosecution, the court addressed the issue of whether the prosecution proved the chain of custody of seized heroin beyond a reasonable doubt. It was held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden due to a critical unexplained seven-day gap in the chain of custody. This decision reaffirmed the principle that an unbroken chain of custody is crucial in drug-related cases and that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision relied on precedents such as Woolmington v DPP, Mohamed Nimnaz V. Attorney General, Perera V. Attorney General, and Koushappis v. The State of WA, emphasizing that any significant flaw in the chain of custody can lead to the setting aside of a conviction.

P. Kumararatna …

🚀 Access AI Pazz for Extended Insights

• Laws Referred 📚
• Citations ⚖️
• Detailed Analysis 📝
• Head Notes 📰
• AI Chat 🤖 and many more tools

Pulwansa Eranda Malaka De Silva and others Vs. Geekiyanage Dulan Priyanga Silva and others ↗

📅 Date: 2025-11-19  | 
📄 Case No: CA RII 0009/2021  | 
🏛 Court: Court of appeal

Open Full Judgment ↗

⚖ Nature of the Case

Substantial rights,Partition,Extraordinary remedy

📘 Case Background

The case, in the matter of Pulwansa Eranda Malaka De Silva and others Vs. Geekiyanage Dulan Priyanga Silva and others, addressed the issue of whether non-parties to an original partition action could avail themselves of Restitutio-in-Integrum and whether sufficient grounds for Revision were demonstrated under Article 138(1) of the Constitution. It was held that Restitutio-in-Integrum is available exclusively to parties of the original proceedings, which the petitioners were not. Additionally, the petitioners failed to clearly establish their title or specific claims to the lands in question, with one item explicitly disclaimed and another not part of the corpus with its lis pendens revoked. This decision relied on precedents such as *Perera vs Wijewickrama*, *Menchinahamy vs Munaweera*, an …

🚀 Access AI Pazz for Extended Insights

• Laws Referred 📚
• Citations ⚖️
• Detailed Analysis 📝
• Head Notes 📰
• AI Chat 🤖 and many more tools

Bogoda Arachchige Manoratne vs. Collure Appuhamilage Somasiri Collure and others ↗

📅 Date: 2025-11-19  | 
📄 Case No: SC Appeal 153/2016  | 
🏛 Court: Supreme court

Open Full Judgment ↗

⚖ Nature of the Case

Prescription, Servitude, Right of way

📘 Case Background

In the matter of Bogoda Arachchige Manortne Vs. Collure Appuhamilage Somasiri Collur, the court addressed the issues of procedural compliance in appeals and the evidentiary requirements for establishing a prescriptive right of way. It was held that the High Court erred in allowing an appeal without a mandatory prayer for relief and in granting a right of way without sufficient evidence of prescriptive user. This decision reaffirmed the principle that strict adherence to procedural requirements, specifically Section 758(1)(f) of the Civil Procedure Code, is essential for appellate relief, and that prescriptive claims necessitate clear evidence of adverse user, as established in *Wanigasooriya Vs. Danawathie and Others (2009) 1 SLR 85* and *Soyza Vs. Fonseka 58 NLR 501*. The ruling emphasize …

🚀 Access AI Pazz for Extended Insights

• Laws Referred 📚
• Citations ⚖️
• Detailed Analysis 📝
• Head Notes 📰
• AI Chat 🤖 and many more tools

Kumastheru Liyange Sumudu Chinthaka vs Bandula Jayasinghe and others ↗

📅 Date: 2025-11-20  | 
📄 Case No: C.A. (Writ) Application No: 0576 / 2024  | 
🏛 Court: Court of appeal

Open Full Judgment ↗

⚖ Nature of the Case

Land succession dispute, retrospective amendment, writs dismissed.

📘 Case Background

In the matter of the Petitioner and the Commissioner General of Lands, the court addressed the issue of land succession under the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and the retrospective application of amendments. The Petitioner sought writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash a decision by the Commissioner General of Lands and compel the issuance of a land permit. The core dispute involved succession to a land grant following the grantee’s death in 1998, where a nominated successor failed to take possession, leading to a dispute between the Petitioner and the 4th Respondent. The court held that the Land Development Ordinance (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 2022 does not operate retrospectively in the absence of express provision, reaffirming the principle that succession is governed by the law pr …

🚀 Access AI Pazz for Extended Insights

• Laws Referred 📚
• Citations ⚖️
• Detailed Analysis 📝
• Head Notes 📰
• AI Chat 🤖 and many more tools

Jason Lishon Batcho Vs. Shenuka Anne Shireen Perera ↗

📅 Date: 2025-11-20  | 
📄 Case No: RII/0072/2024  | 
🏛 Court: Court of appeal

Open Full Judgment ↗

⚖ Nature of the Case

Dismissal of Restitutio‑in‑Integrum application.

📘 Case Background

In the matter of Jason Lishon Batcho (Defendant-Petitioner) and Shenuka Anne Shireen Perera (Plaintiff-Respondent), the Court of Appeal addressed an application for Restitutio-In-Integrum and Revision. The court held that the application was to be dismissed, reaffirming the principle that Restitutio-in-Integrum is an extraordinary equitable remedy granted only when no other adequate legal remedy is available. This decision relied on precedents such as Periera vs. Wijewickrama, Menchinahamy vs. Muniweera, and Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation vs Shanmugam and another, emphasizing that the existence of a pending leave to appeal application constituted an adequate alternative remedy, thereby precluding the grant of extraordinary relief.

R. Gurusinghe J. – The application for Restitutio-in-Inte …

🚀 Access AI Pazz for Extended Insights

• Laws Referred 📚
• Citations ⚖️
• Detailed Analysis 📝
• Head Notes 📰
• AI Chat 🤖 and many more tools

Super Neat Technology (Private) Limited vs Hon. P. Harrison and others ↗

📅 Date: 2025-11-18  | 
📄 Case No: WRT/0273/19  | 
🏛 Court: Court of appeal

Open Full Judgment ↗

⚖ Nature of the Case

Administrative writ petition quashing tender suspension by state‑owned enterprise.

📘 Case Background

In the matter of Super Neat Technology (Private) Limited and Milco (Private) Limited, the court addressed the unlawful suspension of a tender awarded to the Petitioner for a UPS system. The court held that the suspension was arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, and mala fide, evidenced by manipulated Board Minutes and contradictory positions from the line ministry. It was reaffirmed that Milco, as a 100% State-Owned Enterprise, is amenable to writ jurisdiction for administrative decisions. The decision quashed the suspension and mandated the respondents to proceed with the awarded tender and agreement, with Milco ordered to pay exemplary costs.

K. M. G. H. KULATUNGA, J. delivered the judgment, addressing the petitioner’s application for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus conce …

🚀 Access AI Pazz for Extended Insights

• Laws Referred 📚
• Citations ⚖️
• Detailed Analysis 📝
• Head Notes 📰
• AI Chat 🤖 and many more tools