Clarence Wijewardene Copyright Case: The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, in a landmark judgment delivered on 23 May 2025, reaffirmed the importance of intellectual property rights by ruling in favour of the estate of the late Clarence Wijewardene, one of the country’s most celebrated musicians and composers. The case, brought by his widow Mrs. Sheela Wijewardene, revolved around the unauthorized commercial exploitation of Clarence’s musical works by Sarath Kothalawala of Torana Music and others.
This ruling has not only secured the rights of Clarence’s family but has also sent a strong message to the music industry, event organizers, and media companies about the enforceability of copyright law in Sri Lanka. More significantly, it serves as a precedent for the protection of artistic legacies in the country.
Case Title: Sheela Wijewardene vs Sarath Kothalawala
Known as: Jana Gosha Case
Court: Supreme Court of Sri Lanka | SC CHC Appeal No. 04/13
Before : Hon. E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J. ; Hon. A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J.; Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere, J.
Decided on: 23rd May 2025
Background of the Clarence Wijewardene Copyright Case
Clarence Wijewardene, often hailed as the “Father of Sri Lankan Pop Music,” was a pioneer in the industry, leaving behind a catalogue of songs beloved by generations. After his passing, his estate, represented by his widow, became the legal rights holder to his creations.
Mrs. Wijewardene filed suit against Sarath Kothalawala (1st Defendant) and Rajiv Sebastian (2nd Defendant), alleging unauthorized reproduction, marketing, and performance of Clarence’s works. The works in question included some of Clarence’s most popular songs, such as “Malata Bambareku Se,” “Sihina Lovak Dutuwa,” “Mango Nanda,” and “Pemkathawak.”
The Commercial High Court initially granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing activities and awarded costs to the Plaintiff. However, it refused damages and further monetary relief on the grounds that a prior settlement agreement had been reached with the 2nd Defendant, under which Mr. Sebastian paid Rs. 2 million and recognized the estate’s exclusive copyright.
Dissatisfied, Mrs. Wijewardene sought additional remedies, including damages, further injunctive relief, and an accounting of profits. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court on appeal.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The case was heard before Hon. E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J., Hon. A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J., and Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere, J. The panel unanimously upheld the lower court’s findings but expanded the relief granted by allowing one additional prayer the delivery of infringing material to the Plaintiff’s estate.
Key Points of the Clarence Wijewardene Copyright Case
- Permanent Injunction Reaffirmed
The injunction against reproducing, distributing, marketing, or performing Clarence’s works without authorization was upheld. This ensures that Kothalawala and others cannot profit from unlicensed exploitation of the songs. - Damages Denied
The Court declined to award damages against the 1st Defendant. The reasoning was twofold:- The settlement agreement with the 2nd Defendant had already provided monetary compensation to the Plaintiff.
- The Plaintiff had not expressly reserved the right to seek further damages against other defendants when entering into the settlement.
- As such, the Court ruled that additional damages could not be imposed on Kothalawala.
- Delivery of Infringing Material Ordered
Crucially, the Supreme Court ordered that all infringing materials—including CDs, DVDs, and karaoke products—be surrendered to Clarence’s estate. This goes beyond mere prohibition and ensures that infringers cannot continue to profit from past violations. - Judicial Discretion under Section 14 CPC
The Court emphasized its discretion under Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows it to tailor reliefs according to the circumstances of the case. Here, it balanced the settlement’s finality against the need to protect intellectual property rights by ordering the delivery of infringing items.
Implications for Intellectual Property Law in Sri Lanka
This ruling carries far-reaching consequences for Sri Lanka’s creative and entertainment industries.
1. Reinforcement of Copyright Protection
The judgment underscores that copyright is not merely an economic right but also a moral right vested in the creator and their heirs. Unauthorized use; no matter how well-intentioned can and will attract legal consequences.
2. Importance of Settlements
The Court highlighted that settlements, once entered into, limit the scope of future remedies unless rights are expressly reserved. For rights holders, this ruling is a cautionary tale: settlements must be carefully negotiated to preserve claims against other infringers.
3. Precedent on Delivery of Infringing Goods
By ordering the delivery of infringing materials, the Court has signaled that injunctive relief alone may be insufficient. Future plaintiffs may rely on this precedent to seek not only prohibition but also confiscation or destruction of infringing goods.
4. Accountability for Media and Event Organizers
Music producers, broadcasters, and event organizers now have clear notice: they must secure licenses before using copyrighted works. Failure to do so could result in injunctions, loss of materials, reputational harm, and legal costs.
Analysis: Balancing Rights and Remedies
The Clarence Wijewardene case demonstrates the judiciary’s delicate balancing act between protecting creators’ rights and respecting the finality of legal settlements.
On one hand, the refusal of damages may seem like a setback for the Plaintiff. However, the Court’s insistence on surrendering infringing materials ensures that the Plaintiff’s estate retains exclusive control over Clarence’s legacy.
On the other hand, the Court carefully avoided imposing double penalties on the defendants, recognizing that a prior settlement had already compensated the estate. This nuanced approach reflects judicial restraint while still affirming strong protection for intellectual property.
A Milestone for Sri Lanka’s Creative Legacy
Beyond the courtroom, this case is symbolic. Clarence Wijewardene’s songs are woven into the cultural fabric of Sri Lanka. By securing legal protection for his works, the Court has ensured that his contributions are not diminished by unauthorized exploitation.
For musicians and artists across the country, this case reaffirms that their works are not free for public or commercial appropriation. Copyright is not a mere technicality. It is a safeguard for creativity, innovation, and cultural heritage.
Conclusion of the Clarence Wijewardene Copyright Case
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka’s decision in Sheela Wijewardene v. Sarath Kothalawala and Rajiv Sebastian represent a watershed moment in the country’s copyright jurisprudence. While monetary damages were not awarded, the combination of a permanent injunction and the surrender of infringing materials provides robust protection for the Plaintiff.
Most importantly, the judgment has established clear guidance for future disputes:
- Creators and heirs should carefully preserve rights when entering settlements.
- Courts will not hesitate to order delivery of infringing goods to prevent continued exploitation.
- Unauthorized use of creative works, regardless of intent, remains a serious legal violation.
This ruling honours Clarence’s enduring musical legacy while advancing the broader cause of intellectual property protection in Sri Lanka. It is a legal milestone that will resonate in both the creative and legal communities for years to come.