C. J. R. LE MESURIER v. Hon. Mr. C. P. LAYARD, Attorney-General of Ceylon.

C. J. R. LE MESURIER v. Hon. Mr. C. P. LAYARD,

Attorney-General of Ceylon.

D. C, Colombo, C 9,983.

 

Action against the Attorney-General as representing the Government of Ceylon-Wrongful act of the Government of Ceylon-Difference between " the Crown " and " the Government of Ceylon "-Prerogative Law-Roman-Dutch Law-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 456, 458.

An action against the Attorney-General of Ceylon, as representing the Government of Ceylon, for alleged wrongful act on its part, should be treated as an action brought against the Attorney-General as representing the Crown, in accordance with section 456 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Bonser, C.J.-The Royal Proclamation issued in 1799, after the Dutch settlement in the Island was ceded to the British Crown, established the Roman-Dutch Law as the Common Law of the ceded territory, and thenceforth the relations as well as between the Government and the subject as between subject and subject must be governed by that law.

The Attorney-General of Ceylon is the lineal successor of the Advocate Fiscal of olden time, and just as in those days actions against the Government were brought against the Advocate Fiscal, so they may now be brought against the Attorney-General, not only for breach of contract, but also for tort,

THE plaintiff in this case set forth in his plaint that " on the dates material to this action he was and still is a member of the Ceylon Civil Service; " that " the defendant is the Attorney -General of Ceylon and represents the Government of Ceylon; " that being in the third class of the Ceylon Civil Service he was entitled to draw the salary and allowances amounting to Rs. 10,000 per annum; that he applied to the Treasurer of the Colony for the payment of his salary and allowances for the year ending 8th January, 1897, but has not been paid the Rs. 10,000 or part due to him; that in terms of section 461 of the Civil Procedure Code he had given notice of this action to the defendant; that while holding office at Matara he had been forcibly and unlawfully prevented on the 8th January, 1896, from performing the functions of his offices; that be was

not dismissed in accordance with the Colonial sales and regulations, in terms of which he was appointed; that his dismissal, made in contravention and defiance of those rules and regulations, constituted a breach of contract and a wrongful and unlawful act on the part of the Government of Ceylon, for which he was entitled to damages; that even if the Crown had the prerogative to dismiss the plaintiff at pleasure, without reference to the Colonial rules and regulations aforesaid, the Crown had not exercised that prerogative; and that plaintiff had suffered damages in Rs. 100,000. He prayed (1) for judgment for Rs. 10,000, being the amount of his salary and allowances from 9th January, 1896, to 9th January, 1897, and Rs. 10,000 per annum till he was restored to the office; (2) for an order of court restoring him to the functions of his office; or, in the alternative, for Rs. 100,000, being damages sustained by breach of contract and wrongful act, &c.

The defendant pleaded (1) that the defendant did not represent the Government of Ceylon, and that he was not liable to be sued as representing such Government; (2) that no cause of action was disclosed against the Government of Ceylon or against the defendant as representing it; (3) that an action could not be maintained against the Government of Ceylon, as such Government was not a body corporate or a body capable of being sued.

There were also other pleas raised as matters of law and on the merits, which are not pertinent to the present appeal.

On the trial day, after a settlement of the various issues of the case, the only point argued was whether there was warrant for suing the Attorney-General as representing the Government of Ceylon.

The Acting Dist

Click Here to Read the rest of this document