1. Constitutional Law
Nallaratnam Singarasa v. Attorney General [2006] 1 SLR 85: The Supreme Court affirmed the "dualist" nature of Sri Lanka's legal system. The Court ruled that the President's accession to the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was unconstitutional because it conferred judicial power on an international body (the UN Human Rights Committee) without legislative incorporation by the Sri Lankan Parliament.
Rajavarothiam Sampanthan v. Attorney General [2018] 1 SLR 311 (The Dissolution Case): A landmark 7-judge bench unanimously ruled that the President's dissolution of Parliament prior to the expiration of four and a half years of its term was unconstitutional and void, affirming the supremacy of the Constitution over the executive powers of the President.
Premachandra v. Major Montague Jayawickrema [1994] 2 SLR 90: The Supreme Court held that discretionary powers vested in the Executive (in this case, the power of a Provincial Governor to appoint a Chief Minister) are not absolute. They are held in trust for the public and are subject to judicial review to ensure they are exercised reasonably and lawfully.
In re Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution [2015] 1 SLR 255: The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the constitutionality of the 19th Amendment. The Court demarcated the line between executive powers that could be shifted to the Prime Minister by a simple 2/3 parliamentary majority and core presidential powers whose transfer would require a nationwide referendum.
Visuvalingam v. Liyanage [1983] 1 SLR 203: In a case involving the closure of the "Saturday Review" newspaper under Emergency Regulations, the Court examined the proportionality of emergency powers. It held that while national security is paramount, the executive's actions must be strictly proportionate to the threat, setting a precedent for evaluating freedom of expression during states of emergency.
2. Criminal Law
The King v. Mapitigama Buddharakkitha Thero (1962) 63 NLR 433: The famous assassination case of Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike. It is a foundational case for understanding the law of conspiracy in Sri Lanka, detailing how a conspiracy can be proved through circumstantial evidence and the shared intention of the conspirators.
The King v. Anandagoda (1962) 64 NLR 73: The Adeline Vitharana murder case is a hallmark decision on the use of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court laid down the rule that to base a conviction purely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be entirely incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis.
Somaratne Rajapakse v. Attorney General [2010] 2 SLR 113: Often referred to as the Krishanthy Kumaraswamy case, this involved the abduction, gang rape, and murder of a teenager and her family by military personnel. The Supreme Court reaffirmed vital principles regarding "common intention" (Section 32 of the Penal Code) and the proper judicial evaluation of dock statements made by the accused.
Attorney General v. Kularatne [1986] 2 SLR 331 (The Vicarage Murder): A landmark case involving death by potassium cyanide poisoning. The court explored the complex burden of proof required in poisoning cases, emphasizing that the prosecution must unequivocally prove that death was caused specifically by the poison administered by the accused.
Chathuranga v. Attorney General [2014] 1 SLR 301: This case elaborated on the right of private defense under the Penal Code. The court clarified the principle of proportionality, ruling that an individual cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary to repel an attack.
3. Law of Contract
Lipton v. Buchanan (1904) 8 NLR 49: A foundational case affirming that Sri Lankan contract law operates on the Roman-Dutch law concept of causa (a serious and deliberate intention to be bound) rather than the strict English law doctrine of "consideration".
Leechman & Co. Ltd v. Rangalla Consolidated Ltd [1981] 2 SLR 391: A leading case on the formation of contracts and the objective test of intention to create legal relations. It provides a comprehensive analysis of what constitutes a valid offer and an unconditional acceptance in commercial transactions.
Thambiah v. Kudhoos [1993] 1 SLR 123: Discussed the application of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance concerning land transactions. The court applied the equitable principle that the statute cannot be used as an engine of fraud, ruling that a constructive trust can arise even if the formal requirements of a written contract are not met.
Aitken Spence & Co. Ltd v. Fernando [1988] 1 SLR 54: Explored the principles governing specific performance. The court clarified that specific performance is an equitable remedy granted at the discretion of the court, usually when monetary damages are inadequate to compensate the injured party.
Solex Engineering (Pvt) Ltd v. Jacques [2008] 1 SLR 144: A significant judgment dealing with the breach of contract and the calculation of unliquidated damages. The court analyzed how courts should assess financial loss resulting directly from a breach of commercial obligations.
4. Dishonoured Cheques
Collettes Ltd. v. Bank of Ceylon [1984] 2 SLR 253: Examined the liability of collecting banks and paying banks under the Bills of Exchange Ordinance. The court discussed the standard of care a bank must exercise when handling cheques that have been fraudulently altered or when a cheque is wrongfully dishonoured.
Fernando v. State Mortgage & Investment Bank [2001] 1 SLR 249: Clarified the application of "Summary Procedure" (Chapter LIII of the Civil Procedure Code) for liquid claims. The court held that a dishonoured cheque is a prime example of a liquid claim where the plaintiff can obtain a quick judgment unless the defendant can show a valid, triable defense.
Siriwardena v. Bank of Ceylon [2004] 1 SLR 271: Addressed the legal liability of the drawer of a dishonoured cheque under the Debt Recovery (Special Provisions) Act. The court strictly interpreted the procedural mechanisms banks can use to recover debt swiftly upon the bouncing of a cheque.
Peiris v. Seylan Bank Ltd [2001] 2 SLR 199: Focused on the strict requirement of "Notice of Dishonour" under the Bills of Exchange Ordinance. The court ruled that the failure of the holder to provide prompt notice of dishonour to the drawer effectively discharges the drawer from liability on the cheque.
Wijesundera v. People's Bank [1993] 1 SLR 22: Explored the banker-customer relationship, specifically the circumstances under which a bank may be held liable in damages (including loss of trade reputation) for wrongfully dishonouring a customer’s cheque when there were sufficient funds in the account.
5. Human Rights (Fundamental Rights)
Bulankulama v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development (Eppawala Phosphate Case) [2000] 3 SLR 243: A globally recognized environmental human rights case. The Supreme Court utilized the "Public Trust Doctrine" and the concept of sustainable development to halt a massive international mining project that would have displaced local communities and degraded the environment.
Amaratunge v. Sirimal (Jana Ghosha Case) [1993] 1 SLR 264: A watershed judgment that broadly interpreted Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 14). The Court held that the right to speech intrinsically includes the right to peacefully protest, criticize the government, and express dissent.
Sugathapala Mendis v. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga (Water's Edge Case) [2008] 2 SLR 339: Invoking the Public Trust Doctrine, the Supreme Court nullified the transfer of state land for a private golf course. The Court held that the Executive holds public property in trust for the citizens and cannot alienate it through corrupt or arbitrary practices.
Channa Pieris v. Attorney General [1994] 1 SLR 1: A cornerstone case on the freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention (Article 13). The court meticulously outlined the rights of detainees and set strict parameters within which the police and military must operate to ensure arrests are grounded in reasonable suspicion.
Sirisena Cooray v. T.I. Silva [1999] 1 SLR 1: The Supreme Court emphasized the right to equality and equal protection of the law (Article 12). It established that fundamental rights can be violated not just by active misconduct, but also by the arbitrary, unreasonable, or mala fide use of executive discretion.
6. Granting of Bail
Nadesan v. Attorney General [2007] 1 SLR 337: Interpreting the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997, the Court firmly established the guiding principle of Sri Lankan bail jurisprudence: "Bail is the rule, and remand is the exception." It clarified that pre-trial detention should not be used as a form of punishment.
Attorney General v. Shiromi [2007] 2 SLR 225: This case heavily discussed the concept of "exceptional circumstances" required to grant bail under the stringent Offences Against Public Property Act. The court clarified that mere delay in filing an indictment does not automatically constitute an exceptional circumstance.
Liyanage v. State (1998) 3 SLR 322: Elaborated on the High Court's jurisdiction and discretion to grant bail. The court outlined key considerations judges must weigh, including the gravity of the offense, the likelihood of the accused absconding, and the potential for interference with witnesses.
Sumanadasa v. Attorney General [2006] 3 SLR 202: A leading case interpreting the provisions for anticipatory bail under the Bail Act. The court set down stringent criteria that must be satisfied for a judge to grant bail to a suspect before an actual arrest is made.
Berty Premalal Dissanayake v. Attorney General [2016] 2 SLR 1: This case further developed the jurisprudence on what constitutes "exceptional circumstances" under specific non-bailable statutes, ruling that severe, life-threatening medical conditions requiring specialized care unavailable in prison can justify the granting of bail.
No comments:
Post a Comment