Introduction

Injunctions are a legal and equitable remedy granted by Court to prevent the occurrence or continuation of acts that interfere with the legal rights of another party. The jurisdiction to grant injunctions is provided under Section 54(1) of the Judicature Act, while the procedure applicable to injunction proceedings is contained in Chapter XLVIII of the Civil Procedure Code. 

The primary object of an injunction is to preserve the existing status quo and prevent any further violation or derogation of rights until the final determination of the action. In Karunaratne v. Lissie (CALA 284/2000), the Court held that where the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, the grant of an interim injunction was justified in order to maintain the status quo pending trial. 

Lord Denning in Hubbard v. Vosper (1972) 2 QB 84 emphasized that in deciding whether to grant an interlocutory injunction, Court must consider the entirety of the case, including not only the strength of the plaintiff’s claim but also the strength of the defence. His Lordship further observed that in many situations it is preferable to grant an injunction in order to preserve the status quo until trial. 

Procedure for Obtaining an Injunction

The procedure governing applications for injunctions is contained in Sections 662 and 664(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. Under Section 662, every application for an injunction, except where prayed for in the plaint itself, must be made by petition supported by affidavit setting out the facts relied upon by the applicant. 

Section 664(1) further provides that prior to granting an injunction, Court must cause the petition and accompanying affidavit to be served on the opposite party. 

Principles Governing the Grant of Interim Injunctions

The landmark case of Felix Dias Bandaranayake v. State Film Corporation 1981 (2) SLR 287 established the three principal requirements that must be satisfied when determining whether an interim injunction should be granted. These are:

1. Establishment of a prima facie case;
2. Balance of convenience;
3. Equitable considerations. 

Although Court is not expected at the interlocutory stage to finally determine the substantive issues in dispute, it is nevertheless required to examine the probability of success of the competing claims advanced by the parties. 

Prima Facie Case

The concept of a prima facie case was explained by Cotton L.J. in Peterson v. Luck (1884) 27 Ch. 497, where His Lordship stated that the Court must be satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried and that there is a probability that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 

In considering whether a prima facie case has been established, Court is required not only to evaluate the plaintiff’s claim but also to examine the strength of the defence. 

This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Seelawathie Mallawa v. Mille Keerthiratne 1982 (1) SLR 384, where Victor Perera J. held that Court must consider both the nature and strength of the plaintiff’s claim as well as the strength of the defendant’s defence. 

Similarly, in Dissanayake v. Agricultural and Industrial Credit Corporation 64 NLR 283, the Supreme Court observed that the proper inquiry is whether there exists a serious matter to be tried and whether the refusal of the injunction would render any eventual decree ineffective or nugatory. 

In Felix Dias Bandaranayake v. State Film Corporation, Justice Soza explained that the applicant must demonstrate a serious question affecting legal rights and show that there is a probability of success at trial. It is not necessary that the plaintiff be certain to succeed; it is sufficient if the probabilities favour the plaintiff. 

Balance of Convenience

The concept of balance of convenience requires Court to weigh the prejudice likely to be suffered by each party depending on whether the injunction is granted or refused.

In Felix Dias Bandaranayake v. State Film Corporation, Court held that the injury to the defendant if the injunction is granted must be weighed against the injury to the plaintiff if it is refused. Particular importance is attached to the likelihood of irreparable or uncompensatable harm. 

The object of granting an interim injunction is to preserve the property or subject matter in dispute in status quo so that the plaintiff’s ultimate success, if achieved, does not become meaningless or ineffective. 

In Yakkaduwe Sri Pragnarama Thero v. Ministry of Education 71 NLR 506, H.N.G. Fernando C.J. explained that where doubt exists regarding the plaintiff’s rights, Court must evaluate the comparative hardship likely to be suffered by the parties. 

Equitable Considerations

Equitable considerations are also relevant in determining whether interim relief should be granted. These include:

1. Whether the plaintiff has come to Court with clean hands;
2. Whether material facts have been suppressed or misrepresented;
3. Whether there has been undue delay in seeking relief;
4. Other equitable considerations such as vagueness or procedural defects. 

Irreparable Loss and Damage

After satisfying the three principal requirements, the plaintiff must also establish that irreparable loss or damage would result if the injunction is refused. 

Irreparable loss refers to a loss incapable of adequate compensation through damages. The plaintiff must show that an injunction is the only effective means of protecting the rights in dispute until final judgment. 

Generally, where damages have been specifically prayed for in the plaint as an adequate remedy, Court may decline to grant an injunction because the requirement of irreparable loss is not satisfied. 

This principle has been followed in several authorities including:

1. Hydrabad Industries Ltd. v. Idac Trading Pvt. Ltd. 1995 (2) SLR 304;
2. Seylan Bank Ltd. v. Edirisinghe & Another;
3. Ratnapala v. Metro Housing Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. 2005 (3) SLR 217. 

The Wrongdoer Principle

An important exception to the general principle relating to damages arises where the wrongdoer principle applies.

Under this principle, a party should not be permitted to obtain or enjoy benefits arising from his own wrongful conduct. This principle is commonly applied in rent and ejectment matters involving commercial premises where an overholding tenant remains in wrongful possession. 

In Subramainium v. Shabdeen 1984 (1) SLR 48, Court held that where the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case and a violation of legal rights, it would not be just to confine the plaintiff to damages alone. Court therefore granted an interim injunction to prevent the wrongdoer from benefiting from his wrongful conduct. 

Similarly, in Seelawathie Mallawa v. Millie Keerthiratne 1982 (1) SLR 384, Court upheld an order restraining a defendant from obtaining benefits arising from wrongful possession after the expiry of a lease. 

In Nambukara Wakwellagamage v. Milani Nimeshika Kariyawasam & Others SC Appeal No. 33A/2013, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that defendants appearing to be in wrongful possession cannot be allowed to benefit from their wrongdoing. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving the status quo pending the final determination of legal rights. 

The Court further observed that the primary purpose of interim injunctions is to preserve the subject matter in dispute until the conflicting legal rights of the parties are adjudicated upon. Interim injunctions therefore function as a form of protective relief intended to prevent future injury and maintain stability pending trial. 

Conclusion

The law relating to injunctions in Sri Lanka is founded upon both statutory provisions and equitable principles. The grant of interim relief depends upon the establishment of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, equitable considerations, and the likelihood of irreparable harm.

Sri Lankan Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of preserving the status quo and preventing injustice pending the final adjudication of rights. The wrongdoer principle further reinforces the equitable foundation of injunction law by ensuring that no party is permitted to derive advantage from wrongful conduct. Consequently, injunctions remain one of the most important protective remedies available under Sri Lankan civil procedure.

Source: Hulftsdorp Law Journal 2020

Kamran Aziz LLB [Hons. UK]

Attorney-at-Law & Barrister-at-Law