Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1996%20Vol.1-P70&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:15:12+00:00

Document:
S. C. APPLICATION NOS. 66 & 67/95.
principle - Relevance of questions of general and public importance.
Hansard by referring the same for consideration by a fuller Bench.
with the conventions of judicial comity.
Court in this regard is adhered to, the Court's position as the final court will be placed in jeopardy.
decision. Decisions of the Supreme Court are final.
recalled by the Judge or Judges who made the order, acting with discretion exercised judicially and not capriciously.
(a) Is it a case which comes within the scope of the inherent powers of the Court?
(b) Is it one in which those powers should be exercised?
consent will be set aside.
(vi) The attainment of justice is a guiding factor.
Chief Justice the authority to constitute an appellate division of the Supreme Court to review and revise its owndecisions.
determination of a cause agitated between real partiesupon which a real interest has been settled.
"merely agreed" with the opinion of another judge.
general or public importance makes no difference.
in the reasoning on which it is based is found on that account to be demonstrably wrong.
the exercise of the Courts' inherent powers.
new jurisdictions to revise a judgement rendered by Court".
1.Gamage William Singho and Others S.C. LA No. 60/96.
3. Re Ganeshanathan's Application - S. C. Application No. 20/83S.C. Minutes of 21.07.1983.
4. Hettiarachchi v. Seneviratne and Others (No. 2) -  3 Sri L. R. 293, 296, 297 - 299, 304 - 305.
5. Senerath v. Chandraratne, Commissioner of Excise and Others  1 Sri L. R. 209, 212, 216.
6. Suren Wickremasinghe and Others v. Cornel Perera S.C. (SLA) No. 49/96 S. C. Minutes of 21.3.1996.
7. Wayland v. Transvaal Government 1904 TS 758.
8. Moosajees Ltd., v. Fernando and Others (1966) 68 N.L.R. 414.
9. Liyanage and Others v. The Queen (1965) 68 N.L.R. 265, 420.
10. Ganeshanatham v. Vivienne Goonewardene  1 Sri L. R. 319, 329, 340, 355, 377, 378.
11. Vivienne Goonewardene v. Hector Perera and Others  1 Sri L.R. 305.
12. Tucker v. New Brunswick Trading Company of London 1890 Ch. D. 249.
13. Palitha v. O.I.C. Police Station, Polonnaruwa and Others  1 Sri L. R. 161.
14. Billimoria v. Minister of Lands [1978-80] 1 Sri L.R. 10, 14, 15.
15. Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co.,  2 All E. R. 293, 298, 300.
16. Marambe Kumarihamy v. Perera  VI C.W.R. 325.
17. Thynne Marchioness of Bath v. Thynne (Marquess of Bath)  3 All E. R. 129, 145, 146.
18. Mapalathan v. Elayavan (1939) 41 N.L.R. 115.
19. Elo Singho v. Joseph (1948) 49 N.L.R. 312.
20. The London Street Tramways Company Limited v. The London County Council  AC 375, 380.
21. Duchess of Kingston's Case 20 St. Tr. 355, 478, 479.
22. Bandon v. Becher 3 CI. & F 479, 510.
23. Husaam Haj Yihyeh v. The State of Israel: The Jerusalem Post Law Reports reported in Asher Felix Landau 1993 p. 234.
24. Wijesinghe et al v. Uluwita (1933) 34 N.L.R. 362, 364.
25. Easwaralingam v. Sivagnanasunderam (1962) 64 N.L.R. 396, 398.
26. Meier v. Meier (1948) p. 89, 95.
27. Mohamed v. Annamalai Chettiar (1932) 12 CL Rec. 228, 229.
28. Padma Fernando v. T. S. Fernando (1956) 58 N.L.R. 262.
29. Lawrie v. Lees (1881) 7 App. Cas. 19, 34.
30. Re Swire (1895) 30 CH. D. 239, 246.
31. Paul E. de Costa & Sons v. S. Gunaratne (1967) 71 N.L.R. 214, 215.
32. Hatton v. Harris (1892) A.C. 547, 560.
33. Raju v. Jacob (1968) 73 N.L.R. 517.
34. Kariapperuma and Another v. D. J. Kotelawala (1971) 77 N.L.R. 193.
35. Valliammai Atchi v. O. L. M. Abdul Majeed 45 N.L.R. 169.
36. Jonga v. Nanduwa 45 N.L.R. 128.
37. Menchinahamy v. Muniweera (1950) 52 N.L.R. 409, 414 - 415.
38. Caldera v. Santiagopillai (1920) 22 N.L.R. 155.
39. Juan Perera v. Stephen Fernando (1902) 2 Brown Rep. 5.
40. Thambiraja v. Sinnamma (1935) 36 N.L.R. 442.
41. Publis v. Eugena Hamy (1948) 50 N.L.R. 346.
42. Sirivasa Thero v. Sudassi Thero (1960) 63 N.L.R. 31,33,34.
43. Rodger v. Comptoir D' Escompte de Paris (1871) LR 3 1/4C 465.
44. Kadiramanthamby and Another v. Lebbethamby Hadjiar (1971) 75 N.L.R. 228, 231.
46. Loku Banda v. Assen (1897) 2 N.L.R. 31.
47. Karuppannan v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian and Pakistani Residents (1953) 54 N.L.R. 481.
48. Velupillai v. The Chairman Urban District Council, Jaffna (1936) 16 CL Rec. 75, 76.
49. The Police Officer of Mawalla v. Galapatta (1915) 1CWR 197.
50. P. C. Batticaloa 8306, In Revision (1921) 23 N.L.R. 475.
51. The King v. Baron Silva et al (1926) 4 Times of Ceylon Reports 3.
52. Ranmenikhamy and Another v. Tissera and Others (1962) 65 N.L.R. 214, 215.
53. Farrell v. Alexander (1976) 1 All ER 129, 145.
54. Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson (1947) 2 All ER 193, 196.
55. Alasuppillai v. Yavetpillai (1948) 39 CLW 107.
56. Morelle Ltd., v. Wakeling (1955) 1 All ER 708,718.
57. Craig v. Kanssen (1943) 1 All ER 108.
58. Chief Kofi Forfie v. Barima Kwabena Sheifah Kenyaschene (1958) 1 All ER 289 (PC).
59. Woolfenden v. Woolenden (1947) 2 All ER 653.
60. Nisha Sudarshi Ganeshi Kumarasena v. Sub-Inspector Sriyantha and Others SC Application 257/93 - SC Minutes 23.5.1994.
61. Re a Solicitor  2 All ER 432, 434.
62. Rost v. Edwards and Others (1990) 2 All ER 641, 644, 645.
63. A. G. of Ceylon v. De Livera (1962) 3 All ER 1066, 1069, (1963)AC 103, 120.
64. Dissanayake v. Kaleel  2 Sri LR 135.
65. Jayatillake v. Kaleel  1 Sri LR 319.
66. London Street & Tramways Co., v. London Council (1898) AC 375, 380, 381.
67. Jones v. National Coal Board (1957) 2 QB 55, 64.
68. Broome v. Cassell & Co., Ltd., & Another(1971) 2 All ER 187, 198 - 200.
69. Rookes v. Barnard  1 All ER 367.
70. Brown v. Deam and Another (1910) AC 373, 375.
R. K. W. Goonesekera with J.C. Weliamuna for the 1st Respondent-Petitioner in S. C. Application No. 66/95.
S.C. Application No. 67/ 95.
Petitioners-Respondents in S. C. Application No. 67/95.
Upawansa Yapa P. C., Solicitor-General with Chanaka de Silva, S. C. for the Attorney-General.
his Lordship the Chief Justice and the other Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court.
petitioner, in S.C. Application No. 66/95andRs.25,000tothepetitioner-society,the30thPetitioner,inS.C.
sum by way of costs.
On the 19th of December, 1995, the 1st Respondent-Petitioner submitted a petition supported by an affidavittothisCourt.
consideration and/or review and/or revision by a fuller Bench of Your Lordships' Court".
(b) to grant such other and further relief as Your Lordships' Court shall seem meet."
(Powers and Privileges) Act recognized and kept alive by Article 67 of the Constitution.
his responses by way of affidavit to the complaint of infringement of the Petitioners-Respondents, fundamental rights.
comprising five (5) judges of the Supreme Court.
in the stated sum of money to be paid in each case by the 1st RespondentPetitioner.
Registrar to inform the Judges of the Fuller Bench of said nomination.
Respondent Petitioner to be made available to the judges of the Fuller Bench.
law of the land which ought to be considered and decided by a Fuller Bench comprising 5 (five) Judges of the Supreme Court.
And to make consequential orders thereto.
Copies of petition and affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent-petitioner are annexed.
The Bench nominated by the Acting Chief Justice could not be constituted, for although his Lordship the Hon. Mr.JusticeG.
His Lordship the Chief Justice.
laid downfor a course of procedure may be adopted and hold good even though therehasbeennodecisiononthepoint.
However, in Sri Lanka the practice of the Court has been recognized in judgments of the Court.
The practice of the Court in these matters is in accordance with the conventions of judicial comity.InMoosajeesLtd.v.
the passing of a decree determining the rights and obligations of the parties.
1. Has the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review or revise in any manner its own judgment in S.C. Application No. 20/83?
(a) on what grounds or under what circumstances can such jurisdiction be exercised?
(b) what procedure should be followed to obtain relief?
powers vested in him by Article 132 (3) of the Constitution.
Judges who had decided the earlier matter was one of the Judges of the Bench of seven Judges nominated by the ChiefJustice.
practice of the Court in this regard is adhered to, the Court's position as the final Court will be placed in jeopardy.
Supreme Court in Suren Wickramasinghe & Others v. Cornel Perera &Others,(5)heldthat"law,practiceandtradition"
of the 1st Respondent-petitioner to revise or review the decision of the Court. .
with the question of statutory jurisdiction.
the Court's extraordinary, inherent jurisdiction.
the decision are concerned, it is all over. There is an end to such litigation -asneedsmustbewithalllitigation.
resources of the State. Interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium.
ought not to allow this question to be reargued.
WHAT WAS THE HON. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ATTEMPTING TO ACHIEVE?
constituted by the Chief Justice.
Lordship primarily seeking an opinion of a "fuller Bench" on the questions formulated by him?
Articles 120,121,122,123, 125 and 129.
public importancenor has the Court the jurisdiction to entertain such a request.
what is a decision of the Supreme Court.
WHAT IS A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT?
Chief Justice shall be one. (Article 130).
When any division of the Court constituted in terms of the Constitution sits together, it does so"astheSupremeCourt".
conveniently, but inaccurately called a "fuller Bench" has no greater powers or jurisdiction than any division of theCourt.
the Court. Numbers are of no consequence, except that a decision of a Bench of five or more Judgescarriesgreaterweight.
Greene, MR in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co., (supra) at p. 298).
refuse to follow it when deciding other matters, it was final as far as that case was concerned.
was whether a Bench of three judges of the Supreme Court of Israel could dissent from a decision of a Bench offiveJudges.
provision confers no right of appeal, revision or review.
Wickramasinghe, (supra). I find myself in agreement with that view.
direct that such appeal, proceeding or matter be heard by a Bench comprising five or more Judges of the Supreme Court.
direct that such appeal, proceeding or matter be heard by a Bench composed of five or more Judges of the Supreme Court.
Justice the question involved is a matterofgeneralorpublicimportancemakesnodifference.InHettiarachchiv.
of appeal, revision or review.
The Court had more than enough justification for arriving at that decision.
Judges once again being raised between the same parties before a Bench of seven Judges.
Chief Justice, acting under the powers vested in him by Article 132 (3), constituted a Bench of seven Judges.
circumstances, but that the petitioner's matter was not one in which those powers should be exercised.
merits further consideration and/or review and/or revision by a fuller Bench of Your Lordship's Court.".
constitute a Bench to hear an appeal, proceeding or matter in which the Court has jurisdiction.
judgement or order, yet the rule is subject to certain exceptions.
to categorise, mention some illustrations of the scope of the Court's powers.
it arises from a clerical slip or not."
business under the name of "Paul E. de Costa & Sons" should pay a sum of Rs. 60,000 from their personal andprivateassets.
partners. The decree had been affirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court.Uponapplicationforrevision,Manicavasagar,J.
assets of the petitioners save and except to the extent of their interests in the said firm of Paul E. de Costa and Sons."
authorities of the order dismissing the application in revision, hard labour was not resumed until the 30th of October1967.

References: Application No. 20
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Application No. 66
 Application No. 67
 Application No. 67
 Application No. 66
 Application No. 20
 v. 
 v.