IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA D. A. J. Ranwala, No. 32/1, 2^nd Lane, Egodawatta, Boralesgamuwa.

S.C. Appeal No. 19/2017 Plaintiff S.C. (HCCA) L.A. No. 75/2016 WP/HCCA/MT/51/11/(F) Vs.

D.C. Mt. Lavinia Case No. 5304/06 M Ceywater Consultants (Pvt) Ltd., No. 51/1A, Vihara Mawatha, Pepiliyana, Boralesgamuwa.

Defendant AND BETWEEN D. A. J. Ranwala, No. 32/1, 2^nd Lane, Egodawatte, Boralesgamuwa.

Plaintiff – Appellant Vs.

Ceywater Consultants (Pvt) Ltd., No. 51/1A, Vihara Mawatha, Pepiliyana, Boralesgamuwa.

Defendant – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Ceywater Consultants (Pvt) Ltd., No. 51/1A, Vihara Mawatha, Pepiliyana, Boralesgamuwa.

Defendant – Respondent – Appellant Vs.

D. A. J. Ranwala, No. 32/1, 2^nd Lane, Egodawatta, Boralesgamuwa.

Plaintiff – Appellant – Respondent Before: Hon. P. Padman Surasena, J.

Hon. Janak De Silva, J.

Hon. Arjuna Obeyesekere, J.

Counsel: Murshid Maharoof with Shoaib Ahamed and Dasuni Ruhunage for the Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.

N. Mahendra with D. Pathirana for the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent.

Written Submissions:

23.03.2017 and 25.04.2022 by Defendant-Respondent-Appellant

15.05.2017 and 05.05.2022 by Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Argued on: 06.04.2022 Decided on: 08.08.2024 Janak De Silva, J.

The Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent (“Respondent”) instituted this action against the Defendant-Respondent-Appellant (“Appellant”) in the District Court of Mount Lavinia (“District Court”) claiming a sum of Rs. 2,500,000/-, as loss and damages for the breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties.

The Respondent is a Charted Civil Engineer/Hydrologist having over 23 years of experience at the time this action was instituted.

In or about January 2000, tenders were called for by the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Plantation Infrastructure in order to select a consultant to perform the engineering services relating to the “Lunawa Environmental Improvement and Community Development Project”

(“Project”).

The Appellant, which was carrying on the business of engineering consultancy services, submitted a bid for the tender in collaboration with two Japanese companies and a Sri Lankan company, and was the successful tenderer.

The Respondent claimed that T.D.F. Karunaratne, the Managing Director of the Appellant (“MD”), invited him to submit his Curriculum Vitae (පැ.8) promising him employment as a Design Engineer for the full period of the Project which consisted of two phases; the “Design Phase” (which was due to be covered within a period of 11 months) and the “Construction Phase” (which was due to be covered within a period of 36 months).

The Respondent was issued a letter of appointment (පැ.11) for the Design Phase, dated 22.09.2003, to be effective from 01.10.2003. He was subsequently given two extensions by letters dated 10.08.2004 and 03.12.2003. These documents are marked (පැ.12) and (පැ.13) respectively.

It is the case of the Respondent that he was waiting to be called for the Construction Phase of the Project but was not called upon, violating the terms and conditions of the agreement made between the Appellant and Respondent.

The trial proceeded on one (1) admission and eighteen (18) issues. The Respondent testified and then led the evidence of two witnesses, one of whom was an officer from the University of Moratuwa, and the other was an officer from the Institution of Engineers. Both were called to prove his educational qualifications.

The Appellant led evidence of two witnesses, one of whom was the MD and the other, Hidetoshi Sawada, the Project Leader of the Project.

The learned Additional District Judge by his judgment dated 18.03.2011, dismissed the Respondent’s action on the basis that no cause of action has accrued to the Respondent since he failed to establish that that the Appellant was successful in having the tender awarded to it due to the qualifications of the Respondent. It was fu