Colombo, 11 September 2026 – Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision, dismissing an appeal by Rohitha Nandalal Jayawardena in a significant legal battle concerning the leasehold rights of a boutique room in the Hatton Old Public Market. The unanimous judgment, delivered today, found the application for writs of Certiorari and Mandamus untenable on several key legal grounds, including the doctrine of futility and the absence of necessary parties.
Background to the Legal Dispute
The Petitioner-Appellant, Rohitha Nandalal Jayawardena, initially lodged an application with the High Court of the Central Province in Nuwara Eliya. He sought a mandate in the nature of a writ of mandamus to compel the Hatton Dikoya Urban Council (cited as the 17th and 18th Respondents) to grant him the leasehold rights for boutique room No. 16(9). Concurrently, Mr. Jayawardena requested a writ of certiorari to annul any lease agreement that had already been granted by the Urban Council to Solomon Munasinghalage Tanuja Priyadarshani concerning the same premises.
Mr. Jayawardena claimed that he had been in possession of the boutique room since 1st July 1993, having obtained it from one Ekanayake Munasighe. He stated that he had operated a welding workshop and later a grocery shop, paying monthly rentals. He further contended that the leasehold rights should have been granted to him in terms of Circular No. 2016/3, especially since Ekanayake Munasighe had not been present for several years, and despite his payments, he was asked to vacate the premises.
High Court’s Initial Decision Affirmed
The High Court of the Central Province, Nuwara Eliya, had dismissed Mr. Jayawardena’s application on 17th December 2021, leading him to file an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
The two-judge bench of the Court of Appeal, comprising Justices D. Thotawatta and K. M. S. Dissanayake (who authored the judgment), meticulously reviewed the appeal. The Court concluded that there was no legal basis to interfere with the High Court’s order. The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at Rs. 50,000, payable by the Appellant to the Hatton Dikoya Urban Council (18th Respondent).
Key Grounds for Dismissal by the Court of Appeal
The judgment, decided on 11th September 2026, highlighted several critical reasons for affirming the High Court’s decision:
The Doctrine of Futility
Justice K. M. S. Dissanayake pointed out a critical deficiency in the appellant’s prayer for a writ of certiorari. The application was narrowly focused on annulling the lease agreement granted to Solomon Munasinghalage Tanuja Priyadarshani, without seeking to quash the underlying decision made by the Hatton Dikoya Urban Council. The Council’s decision (contained in document “පෙ15” and dated 11.11.2019) was to amend the leasehold rights to Ms. Priyadarshani, the daughter of the original lawful lessee. The Court emphasized that merely annulling the subsequent lease agreement, without challenging and quashing this foundational decision, would render the certiorari application “futile” as the decision itself would remain intact and unaffected, serving no meaningful purpose in law.
Absence of Necessary Parties
A significant procedural flaw identified by the Court was the appellant’s failure to name Solomon Munasinghalage Tanuja Priyadarshani as a party to the writ application. The judgment reiterated established legal principles that any person whose rights are directly and seriously affected by a court order must be made a party and given the opportunity to be heard before such an order is made. Given that the requested certiorari would directly annul a lease granted in her favour, Ms. Priyadarshani was deemed a “necessary party,” and her exclusion was held to be “fatal” to the petition, making the application bad in law for want of necessary parties.
Failure to Satisfy Mandamus Conditions
Regarding the writ of mandamus, the Court found that Mr. Jayawardena failed to provide proof of a distinct legal demand made by him to the Hatton Dikoya Urban Council for the leasehold rights under Circular No. 2016/3, and a subsequent refusal by the Council. The Court also noted that the appellant adduced no material to demonstrate any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the Urban Council’s decision to amend the leasehold rights in favour of Ms. Tanuja Priyadarshani, a decision based on the lawful tenancy of her father, Ekanayake Munasighe. Consequently, the factual matrix did not support the appellant’s claim for mandamus.
Counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant was P. Peramunugama, instructed by Ranganath Peiris. Dilantha Sampath, Senior State Counsel, represented the 19th, 20th, and 21st Respondents (Assistant Commissioner of Local Government, Commissioner of Local Government, and the Hon. Attorney General). Janajith De Silva, with Roshini Rathnayake, appeared for the other respondents. The arguments in the case were heard on 16th March 2026.
This judgment from the Court of Appeal reaffirms the stringent requirements for seeking prerogative writs in Sri Lankan law, underscoring the importance of proper legal strategy, the complete formulation of prayers for relief, and the mandatory inclusion of all parties whose interests are directly affected by court proceedings.
Source: Read original document