COLOMBO – 11 September 2026 – The Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka has dismissed an appeal lodged by Rohitha Nandalal Jayawardena against the Hatton Dikoya Urban Council and others, affirming the High Court’s earlier decision to reject his application for a writ of mandamus and certiorari regarding the leasehold rights of a boutique room in Hatton. The judgment, delivered today by Justices D. THOTAWATTA and K. M. S. DISSANAYAKE, underscored crucial legal principles concerning the doctrine of futility and the necessity of joining all affected parties in writ applications.
Background to the Dispute
The case, identified as CA (PHC) 0053/22, originated from an application by Rohitha Nandalal Jayawardena (the Petitioner-Appellant) to the High Court of the Central Province, holden at Nuwara Eliya. Jayawardena sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Hatton Dikoya Urban Council (18th Respondent) and its Secretary (17th Respondent) to grant him the leasehold rights to boutique room No. 16(9) in the Old Public Market, Hatton. Additionally, he requested a writ of certiorari to annul any lease agreement already granted by the Urban Council to Solomon Munasinghalage Tanuja Priyadarshani for the same boutique room.
Jayawardena claimed continuous possession of the boutique room since July 1, 1993, having obtained it from one Ekanayake Munasighe. He stated he had been operating businesses there and paying monthly rentals, initially in Munasighe’s name. His application was prompted after receiving a letter in January 2020 asking him to vacate the premises, despite his earlier requests to the Assistant Commissioner of Local Government for a lease agreement in his name, citing Munasighe’s absence for years and adherence to Circular No. 2016/3.
High Court’s Initial Decision Affirmed
The High Court had dismissed Jayawardena’s application on December 17, 2021, a decision that was subsequently challenged in the Court of Appeal. The appellate court meticulously examined the High Court’s reasoning, finding no legal basis to interfere with the original order.
Court of Appeal’s Rationale for Dismissal
Justice K. M. S. DISSANAYAKE, delivering the judgment with Justice D. THOTAWATTA concurring, laid out two primary grounds for dismissing the appeal:
1. Doctrine of Futility Regarding Certiorari
The Court pointed out that Jayawardena’s prayer for certiorari only sought to annul the lease agreement granted to Solomon Munasinghalage Tanuja Priyadarshani, not to quash the Hatton Dikoya Urban Council’s underlying decision (documented as පෙ15) made on November 11, 2019, to amend the leasehold rights from Ekanayake Munasighe to his daughter, Tanuja Priyadarshani. The judgment emphasized that even if the lease agreement were annulled, the Urban Council’s decision to transfer the lease would remain intact and unaffected, rendering the certiorari request futile in law. Without quashing the foundational decision, annulling the subsequent lease agreement would serve no meaningful purpose.
2. Failure to Name Necessary Parties
A critical flaw identified by the Court was Jayawardena’s failure to name Solomon Munasinghalage Tanuja Priyadarshani as a party to the writ application. The Court reiterated settled legal principles, citing precedents such as Hatton National Bank PLC Vs Commissioner General of Labour and Others and Gnanasambanthan v Rear Admiral Perera and others, which establish that any person whose rights would be affected by a court order must be named as a party and be heard. Tanuja Priyadarshani, as the current lawful lessee, would have her rights seriously prejudiced by the annulment of her lease agreement, making her a necessary party. The Court held that the failure to make necessary parties respondents is fatal to an application, and on this ground alone, the High Court ought to have dismissed the application in limine.
Failure of Mandamus Application
Furthermore, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s finding that Jayawardena’s application for a writ of mandamus also lacked merit. There was no evidence to suggest that he had made a formal application to the Hatton Dikoya Urban Council requesting the leasehold rights under Circular No. 2016/3, nor proof of the Council’s refusal to grant such rights. The Court noted the requirement that a mandamus application must be preceded by a distinct demand for performance of a duty and a refusal thereof. The Court also found no illegality or irrationality in the Urban Council’s decision to amend the leasehold rights in favour of Tanuja Priyadarshani, recognizing Ekanayake Munasighe as the lawful tenant and subsequently transferring it to his daughter.
Final Verdict
For the reasons articulated, the Court of Appeal concluded that Rohitha Nandalal Jayawardena was not entitled to any of the relief sought, either in fact or in law. Consequently, the High Court’s order was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at Rs. 50,000, payable by the Appellant to the Hatton Dikoya Urban Council.
Source: Read original document