W. Duminda Lakmal vs Hon. Attorney General – CA PHC 194-195/2006-2013

In the case between W. Duminda Lakmal (Appellant) and the Hon. Attorney General (Respondent), the court addressed the procedural issue of whether non-payment of required brief fees after due notification would justify rejection of an appeal. The court held that failure to comply with the procedural requirement of paying brief fees within the specified time frame rendered the appeal unsustainable and subject to rejection. This determination reaffirmed the principle that procedural compliance is mandatory in appellate practice, and non-compliance with procedural directives, including payment of brief fees, warrants rejection of the appeal. The decision relied on established court procedure, emphasizing the importance of adhering to instructions issued by the court to ensure orderly administr