Colombo, Sri Lanka – 11 September 2026 – In a significant ruling underscoring the principles of legal diligence and the proper use of judicial process, the Sri Lankan Court of Appeal today dismissed a revision application filed by the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) against Pathiraja Mudiyanselage Jayasumana Chandrawansa Pathiraja. The Court, comprising Justices Amal Ranaraja J. and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra J., upheld preliminary objections raised by the Accused-Respondent, citing an “inexcusable” delay of two years and seven months in filing the application and the Petitioner’s failure to utilize an available statutory right of appeal.
Background to the Revision Application
The case, identified as Revision Application No. CPA/02/2026, originated from an indictment (Case No. HCB/186/2022) filed in the Colombo High Court against Mr. Pathiraja. He was charged under Section 70 of the Bribery Act for allegedly causing financial loss to the Government between January 2012 and January 2015 by unlawfully providing financial advantages through false certification of poster and digital banner deliveries.
On 16 June 2023, the High Court discharged Mr. Pathiraja after upholding a defence preliminary objection. This objection asserted that all three CIABOC Commissioners had not individually directed the investigation—a prerequisite the High Court Judge deemed necessary for instituting criminal proceedings, though not explicitly required by law.
Aggrieved by this discharge, the Director General, CIABOC, filed the revision application with the Court of Appeal on 8 January 2026, seeking to overturn the High Court’s order.
CIABOC’s Explanation for Protracted Delay
The Petitioner acknowledged the substantial delay, explaining that administrative challenges arose due to pending Supreme Court cases (including SC/Writ/06/2024, SC/FR/105/2024, SC/FR/110/2024, SC/FR/113/2024 and SC/FR/29/2025) that contested the legal appointment of the Director General under the new Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023. These Supreme Court applications were eventually withdrawn on 23 September 2025.
CIABOC argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor inordinate, as proceedings were necessarily postponed pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of these fundamental rights and writ applications.
Court of Appeal’s Stance on Laches and Procedural Diligence
However, the Court of Appeal meticulously examined the Petitioner’s justification. It noted that the revision application was filed on 8 January 2026, approximately three and a half months after the Supreme Court cases were withdrawn on 23 September 2025. Critically, the Court observed that despite the alleged administrative hurdles, CIABOC had instituted other cases during the pendency of the Supreme Court challenges, which suggested the Petitioner had “not come with clean hands.”
Citing legal precedents such as Gunasekara and Another Vs. Abdul Lathif [1995] 1 SLR 225, the Court reiterated that while delay alone does not always bar relief, it must be “reasonably explained.” The Court found CIABOC’s explanation for the 2 years and 7 months delay insufficient, stating that “no reasonable explanation is given.”
The Undisputed Right to Statutory Appeal
A pivotal point in the Court’s decision was the existence of an alternative remedy. The Accused-Respondent argued that CIABOC possessed a distinct statutory right of appeal against the High Court’s order under Section 68(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023. This section grants the Director General the same right to appeal against a High Court judgment, order, or sentence as the Attorney-General.
The Court highlighted that CIABOC failed to exercise this statutory right and offered no explanation for this omission. Referencing cases like Marjan Mohamed Jazil vs Sideek Noorul Hidaya (CA Revision Application No: 0025/17), the Court emphasized that revision is a discretionary remedy, not a right, and petitioners must satisfactorily explain why they did not avail themselves of an available statutory appeal.
Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra, delivering the order, noted that the impugned High Court order was merely an interlocutory order allowing trial proceedings to continue without finalising substantive rights, meaning the Accused had not been acquitted but discharged from proceedings. However, this did not negate the clear right of appeal.
Reinforcement of Legal Principles and Dismissal
The Court further underscored that the issue of whether a sanction by three Commissioners is required for investigations had already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Director General of CIABOC v. K.M. Dissanayaka (CA (PHC) APN 13/2024) and reaffirmed by a Five-Judge Bench in Director General of CIABOC v. Johnston Xavier Fernando and others (CA/CPA/77/2023) on 4 August 2026, where it was held that no such sanction is required.
Ultimately, the Court applied the well-known Latin maxim, “Vigilantibus Non Dormantibus Jura Subveniunt” – “the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.” It ruled that a delay spanning nearly three years fell “well outside normal legal tolerance” and that the Petitioner’s failure to utilize the direct statutory right of appeal under Section 68(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023, was inexcusable.
Upholding the preliminary objections, the Court dismissed the revision application without costs, reinforcing the critical importance of procedural adherence and timely legal action in the administration of justice.
Source: Read original document