Samarawickrema v. Attorney-General – sllr 1983 volume 2 page 162

In Samarawickrema v. Attorney-General, the court addressed whether non-compliance with Rule 35(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978—specifically the failure of the Accused-Appellant to file and serve written submissions within the required time—justifies dismissal of an appeal. It was held that strict adherence to mandatory procedural rules is essential, and the appeal was dismissed for want of compliance, reaffirming the principle that procedural prescriptions in appellate matters are obligatory and not merely directory. This decision drew upon the language of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, underscoring the decisive role of procedural compliance in appellate litigation.

Wanasundera J. — The facts established that a preliminary objection was raised concerning the appellant’s non-complianc