Y. P. Sirisoma vs Samarakone Arachchige Gunaratne – CA NO. 359/97 F-2013

In the case between Y. P. Sirisoma (Plaintiff/Respondent) and Samarakone Arachchige Gunaratne (Defendant/Appellant, Bribery Commissioner’s Department), the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of liability for damages arising from alleged malicious prosecution. It was held that the Defendant/Appellant was not liable, as the essential elements of malicious prosecution—namely, active institution or instigation of criminal proceedings, lack of reasonable and probable cause, and malice—were not established. This determination reaffirmed the principle that to succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant actively set the legal process in motion without reasonable grounds and with malice. Reliance was placed on precedents, including Corea v. Peiris,