SARATH FONSEKA V. MAHINDA RAJAPAKSE AND OTHERS

SARATH FONSEKA V. MAHINDA RAJAPAKSE AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
J. A. N. DE SILVA, C.J.,
DR. SHIRANI A. BANDARANAYAKE, J.,
SRIPAVAN, J.,
RATNAYAKE, J., AND
IMAM, J.
S. C. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION NO. 1/2010
SEPTEMBER 13TH,14TH AND 15TH, 2010

Election Petition - Presidential Election -Preliminary Objections - Dismissal in limine - Prayer to the petition misconceived in law - Failure to join necessary parties - Failure to furnish material facts in terns of Section 96(c) of the Presidential Elections Act, No. 15 of 1981 - Petition does not conform to the requirement set out in Section 96(d) of Act, No. 15 of 1981 - Petition does not set forth full particulars of any corruption or malpractices the petitioner had alleged - Jurisdiction to hear a Presidential Election petition - Article 130 of the Constitution - Section 94 of the Presidential Election Act - Not sought a declaration that the election was void. Maintainability, of the Petition?

The Petitioner, one of the unsuccessful candidates at the Presidential Election held in 2010, sought to have the election of the candidate, the 1st' Respondent declared null and void.

When the Petition was taken up for hearing, the several Respondents informed Court that they had already filed preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Petition. The Petitioner was granted permission to file the Petitioner's Statement of Objections at least one week prior to the hearing of the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents.

When the Petition was taken up again, it was observed that no Statement of Objections was filed by the Petitioner to the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents and therefore the Supreme Court proceeded to hear the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents. Oral

submissions were accordingly made by the Counsel in respect of the following preliminary objections;

(a) The reliefs sought in the prayer to the Petition are misconceived in law and cannot be granted by Court,

(b) The Petitioner has failed to join necessary parties as Respondents,

(c) The Petitioner has failed to furnish material facts in terms of  Section 96(c) of the Presidential Elections Act, No. 15 of 1981, and

(d) The Petition does not conform to the requirements of Section 96(d) of Act No. 15 of 1981, in that, it does not set forth full particulars of any corrupt or malpractices the Petitioner has alleged.

It was also brought to the notice of Court by the learned President's Counsel for the 1st' Respondent that the Petitioner has not sought a  declaration that the election was void as provided in Section 94(a) of the  Act No. 15 of 1981 [Act].

Held

(1) The Supreme Court derives its jurisdiction to hear a Presidential Election Petition in terms of Article 130 of the Constitution and not from Section 91 of the Act.

Per J.A.N. De Silva, C.J. -

"It is well settled that the language of a statute constitutes the depository or reservoir of the legislative intent and the duty of the Court is to interpret the words the legislature has used and not travel outside on a voyage of discovery. Every word of a statute should be construed with reference to the context in which it has been enacted."

Section 94 is clear, unambiguous and specifies the only reliefs that may be claimed by the Petitioner in an Election Petition. The Petitioner cannot ask for any other reliefs other than those specified in Section 94.

Where the Act makes general provisions in terms of Section 91 for the avoidance of election on an election Petition and makes a specific provision with respect to the reliefs which may be claimed,

the latter must prevail over the general provision in relation to the different reliefs that a Petitioner could claim.

Section 94(a) is a stand alone section and must be interpreted strictly in accordance with its plain and natural meaning. Hence the relief sought by the Petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document