Kumarihamy and Others v. Wimaladasa – sllr 1999 volume 3 page 175

In the case between Kumarihamy and others (plaintiff-appellants) and Wimaladasa and others (defendant-respondents), the court addressed the issue of whether the alleged violation of an interim injunction prohibiting the opening of a cart-track over the plaintiffs’ paddy-field constituted contempt of court. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish, beyond the requisite burden of proof, that the defendants had violated the court-issued injunction. Furthermore, it was determined that the subsequent acquisition of the land by the State rendered the injunction unenforceable for the purposes of supporting a contempt claim. This decision reaffirms the principle that criminal contempt must be established with strict adherence to evidentiary standards