K. Somapala vs K.H. Sumanadasa – CA PHC 91/2007-2013

In the case between K. Somapala and K.H. Sumanadasa and Others, the court addressed the issue of whether the appeal should proceed when the appellant had failed to deposit brief fees as required by prior notice from the court. It was held that the appeal must be rejected due to the appellant’s non-compliance with the procedural requirement to deposit brief fees. This decision reaffirmed the principle that procedural directions of the court, such as the payment of designated fees within prescribed timelines, are mandatory and that failure to comply may result in summary rejection of appellate proceedings. The order was based on established procedural rules and emphasizes the impact of procedural default on the continuation of appeals.

A.W.A. Salam J. — It was determined that the appellant