Back
KEKULAWALA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
NLR30V64
Present: Lascelles C.J.
and Middleton J.
KEKULAWALA v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
340-D. C. Colombo, 31,856.
Appeal-Crown as party
appellant-Security for coats.
Where the Crown is a party to an appeal the Crown is not bound to give
security for respondent's costs.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the District Judge of
Colombo. Waller Pereira, K. C. (with Akbar, CO.), for Crown, appellant. De
Sampayo, K. C. (with Schneider), for respondent.
November 28, 1911. LASCELLES C.J.-
An objection has been taken against the hearing of this appeal, I think, without
any confidence on the part of the objector, that the Crown ought to have given
security for costs as a preliminary to the hearing of this appeal. There is no
doubt at all as to the practice which has prevailed for a long time in our
Courts. It has been the invariable practice, as stated by the learned Solicitor
General, for the Crown to dispense with furnishing security for costs if the
Crown is the appellant. No instance has been cited to us of any case in which
the Crown has given or has been required to give security for the costs of an
appeal. The practice that the Crown should not give security for costs is
eminently reasonable. The Crown cannot be compelled to pay costs, but it accepts
as an act of grace the liability to pay costs if ordered to do so by a competent
Court. The respondent would have nothing at all to gain by the Crown being
required to give security for costs, and he has, as a matter of fact, a perfect
security that his costs will be paid if he is entitled at law to have them. I do
not think that the objection has any substance in it, and I think that the
appeal ought to be heard.
MIDDLETON J.-I agree.
Objection overruled.
