Court: Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Case Number: CA [Writ] Application No: 315/2018
Judges: Dhammika Ganepola, J. and Damith Thotawatta, J.
Decision Date: 14th February 2025

Introduction

This report analyzes the case filed by Nagananda Kodituwakku in the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka. The petitioner sought writs of Certiorari and Mandamus under Article 140 of the Constitution in the context of public interest litigation. The case revolves around allegations of misconduct in customs administration and the protection of public property.

Background

The petitioner, Nagananda Kodituwakku, an attorney-at-law and solicitor (England), presented the petition in his capacity as a public interest litigation activist. The petition aimed to uphold and defend the Constitution and the law while combating misuse and waste of public property. The case was filed against the following respondents:

• Director General of Customs
• Two Deputy Directors of Customs
• Sena Mills Refineries Pvt Ltd

The petitioner claimed that his action was in the interest of the public under Article 28 of the Constitution, which outlines the fundamental duties of citizens. The primary grievance was related to alleged fraudulent activities and irregularities in the customs clearance process, particularly regarding the importation of palm oil by Sena Mills Refineries Pvt Ltd.

Preliminary Objection

The 4th Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The objection was based on a prior Supreme Court decision (SC Rule 03/2017), which found the petitioner guilty of dishonourable and unworthy conduct as an attorney-at-law. As a result, the Supreme Court removed the petitioner from the office of Attorney-at-Law and restrained him from filing public interest litigation in his personal capacity.

The petitioner argued that the restriction only applied to cases initiated after the Supreme Court decision and not to applications filed before the ruling. However, the Court of Appeal was bound by the Supreme Court decision and rejected the petitioner’s argument. The Court further noted that allowing the petition to proceed would undermine the Supreme Court’s intention of preventing the petitioner from abusing public interest litigation for personal gain.

Legal Issues

1. Locus Standi (Legal Standing): Whether the petitioner had the legal standing to file the application following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
2. Effect of the Supreme Court Decision: Whether the ruling in SC Rule 03/2017 applied retroactively to cases filed before the judgment.
3. Public Interest Litigation Restrictions: The extent to which individuals removed from legal practice can engage in public interest litigation.
4. Judicial Integrity: Whether the Court of Appeal could disregard the Supreme Court’s decision on the grounds of technical filing dates.

Court’s Rationale

The Court of Appeal upheld the preliminary objection, emphasizing the following:

• The Supreme Court’s decision was final and binding.
• Allowing the petitioner to proceed would nullify the Supreme Court’s decision.
• The restriction on public interest litigation applied to all cases, regardless of their filing date.
• The Court prioritized the intention of the Supreme Court over technicalities related to filing dates.
• The petitioner’s prior conduct demonstrated a pattern of vexatious litigation and misuse of legal processes.

The judges also highlighted the importance of upholding the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court and the need to prevent individuals with a record of misconduct from exploiting the legal system.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal dismissed the petition due to lack of standing. It reinforced the authority of the Supreme Court’s ruling and highlighted the importance of maintaining legal discipline and the integrity of the legal profession. The decision set a precedent for the strict enforcement of disciplinary actions against legal professionals.

Key Takeaways

• The decision underscores the importance of professional conduct in the legal field.
• The binding nature of Supreme Court decisions in Sri Lanka.
• The limitations imposed on individuals who have been removed from legal practice.
• The role of the judiciary in preventing abuse of public interest litigation for personal gain.

Recommendations

1. Further analysis could explore the broader implications of this case on public interest litigation in Sri Lanka.
2. Legal reforms may be needed to clarify the standing of disbarred legal professionals in public interest matters.
3. The establishment of clear guidelines on public interest litigation to prevent abuse while promoting access to justice.
4. Consideration of mechanisms to filter vexatious litigants without discouraging genuine public interest cases.

Download Full Judgement