E & M Law Chambers

22/01/2026

Sentencing Legality & Judicial Discretion – Key Lessons from the recent Court of Appeal Judgement CA CPA 020/25
Attorney General v. Lanthuwa Hanadige Suneetha Silva
Decided on: 20 January 2026
Bench: B. Sasi Mahendran, J., Amal Ranaraja, J.

The Court of Appeal recently reaffirmed strict principles governing sentencing, suspended sentences, and judicial discretion, particularly in serious drug offences involving mandatory minimum sentences.

🔍 What Was the Case About?
The accused respondent pleaded guilty in the High Court to:
• Possession and trafficking of 1.23g of he**in
• An offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 7 to 20 years’ imprisonment
The High Court imposed:
• 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment, suspended for 15 years, for each charge
• Additional fines
The Attorney General filed a revisionary application, challenging the legality of this sentence.

🧾 What Did the Court of Appeal Find?
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the High Court was illegal and not in accordance with law, because:
✔ The offence carried a mandatory minimum sentence, which was not followed
✔ No adequate or clearly stated reasons were given to justify departure from the statutory minimum
✔ The High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offence, including its serious social and economic impact
The sentence was described as “in feris illegal.”

⚖️ Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed
1. Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Where the law prescribes a minimum sentence, courts must follow it unless exceptional reasons are clearly recorded.
2. Suspended Sentences (Section 303 CPC)
A suspended sentence cannot exceed the statutory limit.
3. Judicial Discretion in Sentencing
Courts may depart from statutory minimums, but only with cogent, exceptional, and recorded reasons. Discretion is not unfettered.
4. Gravity of the Offence & Public Interest
In serious drug offences, public interest, social harm, and economic consequences must guide sentencing. Leniency without justification undermines the law.

📌 Outcome
The revision application was allowed.
The High Court’s sentencing order was set aside, and a fresh sentencing inquiry was directed, requiring consideration of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

15/01/2026

12/01/2026

Rei Vindicatio in Sri Lanka: What Must the Plaintiff Prove? (Quick Guide)

Rei vindicatio is the classic Roman Dutch remedy used to recover property from a person who is in possession without lawful right. In Sri Lankan practice, courts keep returning to a few key requirements.

1) Title is everything: burden is on the Plaintiff

In a rei vindicatio action, the plaintiff must prove title. The plaintiff cannot win by attacking the weakness of the defendant’s title.

📌 Key point: A Crown Grant alone is not always enough. The plaintiff must prove a proper devolution of title flowing from the Grant.
R.M. Dharmadasa v R.M.K. Suddahamy (CA 20/2000(F), 08.01.2018)

2) Identity of the corpus: the land must be clearly identifiable

Even strong title evidence may fail if the land in dispute is not clearly identified. Courts accept identification by boundaries as a valid method, and will examine deeds, adjoining boundaries, plans, and oral evidence.

✅ “Identifying a land by its boundaries … can still be considered as a valid method.”
Pattiyage Samie v Pathira Kankanamge Dharshana Shantha (CA 1236/2000(F), 09.08.2019)

3) Standard of proof: balance of probabilities

“Strict proof” does not mean proof beyond reasonable doubt. Rei vindicatio is a civil action and the plaintiff must prove title on a balance of probabilities.

Bank of Ceylon v A.C. Rajasingham (SC/APPEAL/40/2014, 04.07.2023)
SC/Appeal/176/2014 (Minutes 17.05.2021)

4) Defendant’s possession and absence of lawful right

The plaintiff must show that the defendant is in possession of the identified corpus and that such possession is unlawful as against the plaintiff’s title.

5) Prescription is a special plea: must be pleaded and put in issue

Courts have repeatedly stressed that prescription cannot be casually raised. It must be specifically pleaded and framed as an issue at trial. Raising it later can be fatal.

Udumil Marikkar Sara Umma v Mohideen Ebrahim Siththi Afilar Umma (CA/350/2000(F), 13.03.2019)

6) Rei vindicatio is not “against the whole world”

A decree in a rei vindicatio action binds the parties to the case, not everyone.

D.A. Suranga Mojith Kumara v K.B. Ariyarathna (SC Appeal 123/15, 29.03.2016)

7) Important distinction: rei vindicatio vs overholding tenant

If the dispute is really landlord vs tenant holding over, the case may turn on the lease relationship and estoppel, rather than strict proof of dominium.

SC Appeal 145/2013 (Minutes 15.03.2021)
Pathirana v Jayasundera 58 NLR 169

Practical takeaway

To win a rei vindicatio action, the plaintiff must prove, on a balance of probabilities:

Title / superior title

Identity of the corpus

Defendant’s possession

Unlawfulness of that possession

If the plaintiff fails on title or corpus identification, the action fails, even if the defendant’s case is weak.

03/01/2026

Environmental Harm as an International Crime: Key Takeaways for Ghana

A major but understated development in international law deserves close attention, especially from policymakers, lawyers, regulators, and businesses in resource-rich states.

On 1 December 2025, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court issued a new policy confirming that severe environmental destruction can amount to international crimes, including crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Below are the key areas this shift highlights for Ghana:
1. Environmental harm is no longer only a regulatory issue
Where environmental damage is widespread, systematic, and causes serious harm to civilian populations, it may now fall within international criminal law. This elevates environmental protection into the core accountability framework.
2. Illegal mining (galamsey) gains international legal relevance
Activities that contaminate rivers such as the Ankobra, Pra, and Birim with mercury or cyanide may, in extreme cases, meet the threshold of crimes against humanity if they result in serious health impacts or loss of access to clean water.
3. Extractive industries face heightened scrutiny
Offshore oil and gas operations, gas flaring, oil spills, and marine ecosystem damage now carry increased legal risk, particularly where communities are adversely affected.
4. Corporate executives face personal accountability
The ICC policy makes clear that corporate structures cannot shield individuals. Senior decision-makers may be held personally responsible for severe environmental harm caused through business operations.
5. Importance of specialised national courts
Ghana’s proposal to establish specialised courts for environmental and financial crimes reflects international best practice and aligns with the ICC’s complementarity principle, which prioritises domestic prosecution.
6. Sovereignty through institution-building
Rather than weakening sovereignty, strong national enforcement strengthens it. Ghana demonstrates leadership by addressing environmental crimes through its own judicial mechanisms.
7. Regional leadership potential
Ghana’s approach can shape standards within ECOWAS, encouraging coordinated regional responses to environmental crime.

Bottom line:
Environmental protection, human rights, and criminal accountability are now legally intertwined. For Ghana, this is an opportunity to lead through law, institutions, and responsible governance.
Environmental justice is no longer optional. It is part of the international legal order.

24/12/2025

Personal Data Protection Act No. 9 of 2022

The book covers a wide range of topics;
✏️ including the definition of personal data,
✏️ the principles of data protection,
✏️ the rights of individuals,
✏️ the obligations of data controllers,
✏️ enforcement mechanisms of the Act.

14/12/2025

08/12/2025

Proof of Deeds & Damages Claims

SC/Appeal/No.192/2025 & SC/Appeal/No.191/2025
Decided on: 5 December 2025
A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J., Yasantha Kodagoda PC J., K. Priyantha Fernando J.

🔍 What Was the Dispute About?

The Plaintiff sought:

• Title to Lot 2 (0A 0R 24P) based on Deed of Gift No. 4016 (P7)
• Ejectment of the Defendant
• Damages for wrongful occupation

The District Court granted title but rejected damages.
The Civil Appellate High Court reversed the title and affirmed the denial of damages.

Both issues came before the Supreme Court on appeal.

📜 What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

1. Deed of Gift (P7) was duly admitted
The Court held that P7 must be treated as proved because no objection was raised at the close of the Plaintiff’s case.
Under Section 154A and Section 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, No. 17 of 2022, failure to object in time means the document is accepted.

A purposive interpretation of Section 3 confirmed that the High Court was wrong to reject the deed.

Result:
The Supreme Court set aside the Civil Appellate High Court’s judgment on title.

💰 2. Damages Claim – Why It Failed

The Plaintiff could not prove damages.
There was no sufficient oral or documentary evidence to show loss.

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of both lower courts:

✔ No proof of the amount claimed
✔ No evidence of actual loss
✔ No material supporting the calculation of damages

Result:
The High Court decision on damages was upheld.

⚖️ Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed

1. Timely Objections to Documents Are Crucial
If a party fails to object at the close of the opponent’s case, the document becomes admitted.

2. Purposive Interpretation of Procedural Amendments
The Court emphasized that transitional provisions in procedural law must be read in a way that supports efficient justice, not technical defeat.

3. Damages Require Proof
A claim cannot succeed without clear evidence.
The burden lies on the party seeking compensation.

25/11/2025

Unjust Enrichment & Evidence Law – Key Lessons from the Supreme Court (SC CHC Appeal 104/2018)
S.C.B. Jayasinghe and Others v. Kajima Corporation and Others

Decided on: 19 November 2025

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed an important principle in civil litigation: you cannot win a claim without solid, documentary evidence.

🔍 What Was the Case About?

The Plaintiffs claimed that:
• Rs. 68 million was due from the CEB to the Kajima Kumagai Hazama Joint Venture (KKH)
• Out of this, Rs. 55 million should have been paid to them
They argued that KKH was unjustly enriched by not paying these sums.

🧾 What Did the Court Find?

The Supreme Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their case, because they did not produce:

✔ The quotation
✔ The price acceptance
✔ Proof of completed work
✔ Proof that CEB paid KKH
✔ Proof that KKH withheld Rs. 55 million
✔ Evidence explaining how Rs. 13 million already received was allocated

Even the cross-examination of the 2nd Plaintiff showed major gaps in evidence.

⚖️ Key Legal Principles Applied
1. Burden of Proof

The party making the claim must prove it.
The Plaintiffs failed to establish even the basic probability of their version.

2. Unjust Enrichment

To succeed, you must show:
• enrichment of the defendant
• at your expense
• without lawful justification

The Plaintiffs could not prove any of these elements.

3. Adverse Inference (Section 114(f), Evidence Ordinance)

The Plaintiffs attempted to argue that KKH withheld documents, and therefore the Court should presume those documents were unfavourable to them.

The Supreme Court has not granted what the appellant prayed for,
Why?
Because you must first prove that such documents actually exist and were withheld.
The Plaintiffs did not provide that foundation.

16/11/2025

Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Tilakaratna Banda v. Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Subarath Menike and Others, SC Appeal No. 105/2012, Decided on 07/11/2025

Key Principles on Land Identification, Admissions, and Estoppel

In this case, the Plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership, vacant possession, and damages in respect of a specific land. The District Court ruled in their favour, but the Civil Appellate High Court reversed the decision on the ground that the Plaintiffs had not properly identified the corpus in their rei vindicatio action.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, Janak De Silva J. (with Thurairaja PC J. and Nawaz J. agreeing) held that the High Court had fallen into error. Both parties had expressly admitted the identification of the land at the trial stage by referring to Plan No. 1247/කුරු. Under Section 58 of the Evidence Ordinance, such an admission is conclusive unless it is withdrawn. Since no withdrawal had been made, there was no basis to revisit the question of land identity.

The Court also noted that the 1st to 4th Defendants, having pleaded prescriptive title to the very same identified land, could not later deny its identity. Their own pleadings created estoppel, preventing a contradictory position at the appellate stage.

13/11/2025

Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
SC Appeal 56/2023
Decision Date: 07 November 2025
Prescriptive Title and Adverse Possession

The Supreme Court, comprising Mahinda Samayawardhena J, K. Priyantha Fernando J, and Menaka Wijesundera J, delivered an important decision in Kumudu Chanda Amaradasa v. Minatul Fakariya Kalid and Others on the requirements for establishing prescriptive title to immovable property.

The Court affirmed that the Plaintiffs-Respondents had proved ten years of continuous, undisturbed, and adverse possession from 10 July 1986 to 10 July 1996. Their conduct, including police complaints made in 1986, 1995, and 1996, showed a clear and consistent assertion of possession.

The conditional transfer deed (No. 10159) was examined and found not to contain any intention to transfer possession or ownership to the Defendant-Appellant’s predecessor. By contrast, the evidence presented by the Defendant-Appellant, such as claims of rubber cultivation and house rental, was incomplete, unsubstantiated, or marked by inconsistencies.

The Court accepted the Plaintiffs-Respondents’ consistent version of events, supported by a neighbour’s testimony, and dismissed the appeal. The judgments of the District Court and the High Court were upheld, with costs awarded to the Plaintiffs-Respondents.
This judgment reinforces the principle that a prescriptive claim must be supported by clear, credible, and uninterrupted evidence of possession for the statutory period.

05/11/2025

Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Act 22 of 2025 - Sri Lanka

The Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Act, No. 22 of 2025, strengthens the original 2022 enactment by refining key definitions, streamlining implementation, and introducing greater flexibility in enforcement.

These changes ensure smoother institutional setup, clearer accountability for data protection roles, and better alignment with international standards - making the law more practical and adaptive to Sri Lanka’s evolving digital landscape.

Key Highlights

The legislation introduces significant revisions to the rights of data subjects and the obligations of data controllers.

Section 17 - Grant or refusal of rectification, completion, erasure or refrain from further processing)

is extensively amended to detail the process for controllers to respond to data subject requests, including provisions for extending response times and informing data subjects of their right to appeal to the Authority.

Section 19 - Right of appeal of the data subjects to the Authority and the process of determination of such appeal

Furthermore, some sub-sections are repealed and substituted to outline the appeal process for data subjects against various refusals by controllers, such as access to personal data, withdrawal of consent, rectification, erasure, or review of automated processing decisions. These changes enhance transparency and accountability in data handling.

Section 26 - Cross-border data flow

Crucially, the Act redefines cross-border data flow regulations by repealing and substituting, specifying conditions under which controllers or processors may engage in such transfers, including compliance with specific parts of the Act and the adoption of instruments specified by the Authority.

51A - Guidelines

It also introduces a new section 51A for the Authority to issue guidelines from time to time, formulated by the advisory committees and approved by the Authority

Section 56 - Interpretations

The definitions of “Data Protection Officer,” “public authority,” and “third country” have been amended to provide clearer and more precise interpretations.

These amendments strengthen the regulatory framework for data protection in Sri Lanka, particularly concerning international data transfers and the roles of key stakeholders.