Sobanahamy v. Somadasa – sllr 2005 volume 3 page 201

In the case between Sobanahamy (plaintiff) and Somadasa (defendant), the court addressed whether the trial judge’s failure to consider and answer all issues raised by the plaintiff, as well as the inadequacy of providing bare answers without supporting reasons, satisfied the obligations under section 187 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that the omission to address each party’s issues constituted a substantial procedural error, rendering the judgment non-compliant with statutory requirements. The principle reaffirmed is that all issues framed must be addressed with reasons, not merely brief answers. The decision relied on the requirements of section 187 and supporting legal precedents, signifying that judgments must provide reasoned resolutions to all framed issues for the protecti