RANASINGHE BANDARA

Vs.

DIRECTOR, DISTRICT LAND REFORM COMMISSION AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
J. DE SILVA,J.
CA/WRIT/233/2017
FEBRUARY 20, 2019

Land Reform Commission-Substantive legitimate expectation-Ultra vires representations and legitimate expectation-Ostensible authority of a public officer

The petitioner, on the belief that his lessor had a valid lease from the Land Reform Commission, was in possession of a particular land. It transpired later that the lessor in fact had no such lease. Subsequently the petitioner wrote letters to the Land Reform Commission, all of which were responded to by the Director of the Land Reform Commission and upon which the petitioner based a claim for legitimate expectation to remain on the property under the Land Reform Commission. Upon the Land Reform Commission issuing the petitioner a notice to quit, the petitioner instituted these proceedings seeking to quash the notice to quit by a writ of certiorari and a writ of prohibition.

Held:

1. Substantive legitimate expectation is permitted based on the principle of legal certainty. It is in the interests of good administration that a public body, which makes a promise, should act fairly and implement its promise.

2. The starting point for legitimate expectation is to ask what the individual's legitimate expectation was. Where there is a dispute on this, the court may decide the same by considering the following three outcomes, taking a different role in respect of each category.

a) The court may decide the public body only needs to bear in mind its previous policy assurances, giving it the weight it thought fit but no more, before deciding to change course. The Court will then only review the decision on conventional Wednesbury unreasonableness.

b) The court may decide that the representation gives rise to a legitimate expectation or procedural benefit and, if so, the court will require that an opportunity for consultation is given unless there is an overriding reason to withdraw from it.

c) The court will, in a proper case, decide whether to frustrate the expectation is so unfair that to take a new and different course will amount to an abuse of power. Once the legitimacy of the expectation is established, it is for the court to determine whether there is sufficient overriding interest relied upon for the change of policy or to justify the public interest from the individual's interest. The court is undertaking a balancing exercise between the public interest and the individual's interest.

3. An ultra vires representation should not be binding on the body which made it as it would entirely destroy the whole of the doctrines of ultra vires and separation of powers. None of the communications relied upon by the petitioner bind the Land Reform Commission as it is the Commission and not a Director that has the power to lease land owned by the Commission.

4. Alf ostensible authority involves a representation by the principal as to the extent of the agent's authority. No representation by the agent as to the extent of his authority can amount to a 'holding out' of the principal. The Land Reform Commission had not held out the Director as having any ostensible authority to lease out the land on behalf of the Land Reform Commission.

Cases referred to:

1. Chandrasena v. Dahanayake and others (1985) 1 Sri LR 151
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985)AC 374, 408-9
3. Sudhakaran v. Bharathi and others (1987)2 Sri LR 243
4. Desmond Perera v. Karunaratne, Commissioner of National Housing [1994) 3 Sri LR 316(CA); [1997) 1 Sri LR 148 (5)

5. Laub v. Attorney General [1995] 2 Sri LR 88
6. Multinational Property Development Ltd v. Urban Development Authority [1996] 2 Sri LR 51
7. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Exp.Hargreaves (1997) 1 WLR 906
8. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p. Ruddock [1987] 1 WLR 1482
9. R v. Ministry for A