Appuhami vs Loku Manika – CA PHC NO. 27/2005-2012

In the case between Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Appuhami (Plaintiff) and Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Loku Manika (Defendant), the court addressed whether the appeal should continue in the absence of compliance with procedural requirements, specifically the non-payment of brief fees as mandated by Rule 13(b) of the Supreme Court Rules. It was held that the failure of both parties to pay the required fees after due notice constituted non-compliance, demonstrating a lack of interest in proceeding with the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that strict adherence to procedural rules, such as payment of brief fees, is essential for the maintenance of appeals. Reliance was placed on Rule 13(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, with emphasis placed on the necessity of procedural compl