ATTANAYAKE V. COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF ELECTIONS

ATTANAYAKE V. COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF ELECTIONS

SUPREME COURT
DR. SHIRANI A. BANDARANAYAKE, C.J.,
RATNAYAKE, P.C., J. AND
PRNASATH DEP, P.C.,J.
S.C.(SPL)L.A. NO. 55/2011
C.A. WRIT APPLICATION NO. 155/2011
JULY 4TH, 2011

Supreme Court Rules, 1990 - Compliance of Rule 8 is imperative - Rule 40 -Application for extension of time for the purpose of Rule 8/31 - Procedure.

The petitioner preferred this application before the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal. The Respondents took up a preliminary objection that the application for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court should be dismissed as the Petitioner has not complied with Rule 8(3) and Rule 40 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1990. At the time of filing of the application, the Petitioner had not issued notices on the Respondents through the Registrar. It is also admitted that the Petitioner had not made any application in terms of Rule 40 for an extension of time. Admittedly, this matter had come up for support on two occasions without notices to the other Respondents.

Held:

(1) the provisions laid down in Rule 8 clearly deal with the need to issue n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document