Amarasekera v. Mohamed – sllr 2006 volume 2 page 219

The case between Amarasekera (plaintiff-respondent) and Mohamed (defendant-appellant) addressed the issue of whether evidence relating to former tenants was relevant for determining if the premises in question had been constructed before the Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance came into effect. It was held that such evidence was relevant and admissible, reaffirming the principle that facts sufficiently connected by commonsense and probability are admissible to prove a fact in issue. This decision relied on Sections 3 and 7 of the Evidence Ordinance, emphasizing that prohibitions on collateral evidence must be narrowly construed and that relevant evidence, including that of former tenants, may be admitted to establish the period of construction.

Wimalachandra J. — It was determined tha