In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal could exercise its revisionary jurisdiction against an Order or Judgement pronounced by the Provincial High Court under Article 154P (3)(b) of the Constitution.
The Judgement was delivered by a three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Buwaneka Aluwihare, Vijith K. Malalgoda and L. T. B. Dehideniya.
It is for the first time in Sri Lanka’s legal history, it has been held by the Supreme Court that even where an appeal lies to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal’s revisionary jurisdiction is not ousted if the correct circumstances were present.
Hence, such Judgement pronounced by the Supreme Court could be considered a watershed moment in the history of the Sri Lankan legal history as such judgement will influence a large number of cases in the future where similar disputes arise in relation to other jurisdictions and has further more enhanced, strengthened and further established the revisionary jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.
Section 9 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990 (as amended) provides a direct right of appeal to the Supreme Court from the Orders or Judgements pronounced by the Provincial High Courts, exercising their appellate jurisdiction under Article 153P(3)(b) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
In spite of this, the Supreme Court held in the concerned Judgement that Article 138 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka cannot be impliedly repealed by an ordinary law and hence the revisionary jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal would subsist in the aforementioned circumstances.
It was also mentioned in the concerned Judgment that should a different outcome be expected that there should be legislative interference.
The aforementioned Judgment promulgated by the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal Judgment on the same issue where a divisional bench held that the Court of Appeal does not have revisionary jurisdiction against an Order/Judgement pronounced under Article 154P(3)(b) of the Constitution.
As a result a large number of cases which were instituted before the Court of Appeal were in limbo awaiting the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned
matter before they could be proceeded with.