Colombo, Sri Lanka – 30 September 2026 – The Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka, in a significant ruling delivered on September 29, 2026, dismissed a revision application filed by Marasinghe Arachchige Thananjaya Sithum Padmalal. The application, directed against the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Ruwanwella and the Hon. Attorney General, was thrown out on the grounds that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, reinforcing the established judicial hierarchy concerning reviews of Provincial High Court appellate judgments.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Amal Ranaraja, with Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra concurring, underscores a crucial point of law regarding the scope of the Court of Appeal’s revisionary powers, particularly in relation to decisions made by Provincial High Courts exercising their appellate jurisdiction.
Background to the Case
The genesis of the dispute dates back to December 31, 2020, when officers from the Ruwanwella Police Station arrested Kaludurage Nihal Senaratne for illegally transporting Jak timber logs valued at approximately Rs. 61,605.85. The timber was being transported in a vehicle bearing Registration Number 42-2068 without a valid permit, an offence under Sections 24(1), 25(2), and 40 of the Forest Ordinance No. 16 of 1907 (as Amended).
Senaratne subsequently pleaded guilty in the Ruwanwella Magistrates Court, was convicted, and sentenced. A separate confiscation inquiry was then initiated concerning the vehicle. On August 20, 2024, the learned Magistrate ordered the confiscation of the vehicle. Aggrieved by this order, Marasinghe Arachchige Thananjaya Sithum Padmalal, the registered owner and claimant-appellant, filed an appeal (7041/අ”/24) in the High Court of Kegalle.
However, the High Court of Kegalle, on June 08, 2026, dismissed the appeal, affirming the Magistrate’s confiscation order. It was this High Court decision that Marasinghe Arachchige Thananjaya Sithum Padmalal sought to challenge through a revision application before the Court of Appeal.
The Jurisdictional Challenge
The central question before the Court of Appeal was whether it possessed the revisionary jurisdiction, granted under Article 138 of the Constitution, to review a judgment of a High Court made in the exercise of its appellate powers vested under Article 154P (3)(b) of the Constitution.
The learned State Counsel, Wishwa Wijesooriya, representing the respondents, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Court of Appeal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain such an application. Danushka Rahubadda, with Uvindu Jayasiri, appeared for the Petitioner.
Court of Appeal’s Analysis and Ruling
The Court of Appeal delved into the constitutional and statutory framework, specifically Articles 154P (3)(b) and 154P (6) of the Constitution, and Sections 5 and 9 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 (as Amended). These provisions outline the appellate and revisionary jurisdiction of the Provincial High Courts and the subsequent avenues for appeal to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.
Crucially, the Court referred to existing precedents set by Sri Lanka’s Superior Courts regarding the relationship between Article 154P of the Constitution and the Provincial High Courts Act. The Court cited the Supreme Court decision in SC/Appeal/65/2025 W.T.S. Nilantha Fernando Vs. P.M.S. Nilanthi Perera (decided on 15.05.2025), where Justice Samayawardhena held that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction, whether by way of final appeal, revision, or restitutio in integrum, to review the judgments or orders of the Provincial High Court when it exercises its appellate or original jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated, is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court.
Based on this clear legal precedent, the Court of Appeal concluded that when a Provincial High Court has exercised its appellate jurisdiction, any dissatisfied party cannot submit an application for revision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal simply does not possess the jurisdiction to consider such an application.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application without costs, reaffirming the jurisdictional boundaries within Sri Lanka’s judicial system.
Source: Read original document