Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1978-79-80%20Vol.1-P10&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:30:00+00:00

Document:
incuriam - Appeal to Supreme Court -Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2) as amended by Law No. 29 of 1974, section 21.
Constitution of Sri Lanka, Article 125 - Requirement that "any question relating to the interpretation oftheConstitution"
should be referred to Supreme Court - When Article 125 applicable.
obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, from this order.
order an order per incur am.
order. The interests of justice required that a stay order be made as an interim measure.
the interpretation of the Constitution.
made the order so that he or they can correct the error.
(1)Weerasooriya v. Sedambaram Chetty, 8 C.W.R. 238.
(2)Alasupillai v. Yavetpillai and another, (1949), 39 C.L.W. 107.
(3)Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson, (1947) 2 All E. R. 193.
(4)Morrelle v. Wakeling, (1955) 2 W.L.R. 673(1955) 1 All E. R. 708(1955) 2 HB. 379.
(5)Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd, (1944) 2 All ER. 293, (1944) KB. 718, 171 L. T. 113.
(6)Broome v. Cassell & Co. Ltd., (1971) 2 All E.R. 187, (1971) 2 W.L.R. 853.
H. L. de Silva with Miss M. Seneviratne, for the petitioner.
the 1 st and 3rd respondents.
Mark Fernando with R. L. Perera, for the 2nd respondent.
-petitioner's application for Orders in the nature of Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition."
(c)that "no certiorari or prohibition lie (sic) in respect of the impugned proceedings".
The matter was taken up for hearing by two Judges of the Court of Appeal who were not the Judges that madethestayorder.
taken into consideration along with the main dispute, namely, whether writs should issue or not."
be left holding an empty decree worthless of all purposes. Vide Bertram C.J. in Weerasooriya v. Sedambaram Chetty (1).
Cader, J. himself considered the stay order in this case in the same light.
The Attorney-General contended that the stay orderwasonemadeperincuriam.HecitedthecaseofAlasupillaiv.
which is an essential feature of our law, be in the language of Lord Greene M.R., of the rarest occurrence."
(ii)a decision in ignorance of a decision of a higher Court covering the case which binds the lower Court.
been disregarded because the Court did not have the benefit of a full argument before it rejected the common law.Broomev.
Interpretation Ordinance. It could not therefore be said that thestayorderwasmadeinignoranceofitsexistence.
made after consideration and was not one made per incuriam.
adversary proceedings between them, there must arise the need for an interpretation of the provisions oftheConstitution.
8.1.79 is set aside and the case will now go back for further hearing. The Appellant will be entitled to costs.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.