CA Writ of Quo Warranto against PM dismissed

 The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed the Writ of Quo Warranto application against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, challenging his parliamentary seat.

Justice Shiran Gooneratne, with Justice K. Priyantha Fernando concurring in his judgment, observed that there is a clear and consistent non-compliance of the Court of Appeal Rule and upheld the Preliminary Objections on the maintainability of the application.

UPFA Colombo Municipal Councillor and Co-President of ‘Women for Justice’ Sharmila Gonawela filed the Writ of Quo Warranto (a writ or legal action requiring a person cited to show by what warrant an office is held) Petition against Ranil Wickremesinghe from being a Member of Parliament.

The Petitioner cited Ranil Wickremesinghe, Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, and General Secretary of Parliament Dhammika Dasanayake and two others as Respondents. 

K. Kanag-Iswaran PC, appearing for Ranil Wickremesinghe, in his Preliminary Objections had submitted that it is a pure and mandatory law that the Petition shall be filed in compliance with the Court Rule. The documents annexed hereto the Petition are not duly certified and so the application cannot be supported.

Justice Shiran Gooneratne in his order inter alia states as follows:

The Petitioner states that she is a citizen of Sri Lanka and makes this application in the public interest. In this application the Petitioner complains that the 1st Respondent, (Hon. Ranil Wickramasinghe), as at the time of the Parliamentary Elections held on 17/08/2015, held a financial interest in several contracts entered into with his family company «Lake House Printers and Publishers PLC», by the public corporations, referred to below, on behalf of the Republic of Sri Lanka, while holding the office of Prime Minister of the Republic within the Cabinet of Ministers.

In the said circumstances, the Petitioner states that the 1st Respondent is guilty of having an interest in such contracts entered into with state institutions or public corporations as contemplated by Article 91 (1)( e) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 1978, and, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to a mandate in the nature of a writ of Quo Warranto requiring the 1st Respondent to show by what authority he claims to hold office as a Member of Parliament.

When this application came up for support on 12/02/2019, prior to the application for notice, counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents raised Preliminary Objections to the maintainability of the Petition.

Preliminary Objections raised on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, inter alia, are that; l. The Petitioner had failed to comply with Rule 3(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal (Appellate Procedure) Rules 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the «Court of Appeal Rules») inasmuch as;  Several material documents relied on by the Petitioner have not been duly certified, and not even been duly certified as a true copy by an Attorney-at-Law.

Documents material to the Petitioner (material documents) have not been furnished (even copies of the relevant contracts). Necessary parties to this application have not been named as Respondents. No final relief has been sought against the 4th and 5th Respondents, and as such no interim relief can be sought against them.

Deputy Solicitor General associated himself with the aforesaid preliminary objections and, in addition, raised the following Preliminary objections on behalf of the 4th Respondent; 1. The application of the Petitioner in respect of prayers (b) and (c) to the Petition is misconceived in law. 2. In the absence of necessary parties, the Petitioner cannot proceed with this application. 3. The Petitioner has failed to exhaust alternate remedies.

The first Preliminary Objection on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents is based on the non-compliance of Rule 3(1) (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and thus the failure of the Petitioner to validly invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court and seeks that this application be dismissed in limine.

Rule 3(1) (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules states that; «Every application made to the Court of Appeal for the exercise of the powers vested in the Court of Appeal by Article 140 or 141 of the Constitution shall be by way of Petition, together with an affidavit in support of the averments therein, and shall be accompanied by the originals of documents material to such application (or duly certified copies thereof) in the form of exhibits.

Where a Petitioner is unable to tender any such document, he shall state the reason for such inability and seek the leave of the court to furnish such documents later.

Where a Petitioner fails to comply with the provisions of this rule, the court may, ex mero motu or at the insistence of any party, dismiss such application.

President›s Counsel for the 1st Respondent has referred to the judgment of Shiranee Bandaranayake J. (as she then was) in Shanmugavadivu V. Kulathilake (2003) 1 SLR 215, where she held that; «The requirements of Rules 3 (l)(a) ... ... are imperative «, and gone on to 8 Without prejudice to the above stand, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contends that non-compliance with rule 3(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, does not ensure automatic mandatory dismissal, since the said Rule by the following words, «Where a Petitioner fails to comply with the provisions of this rule the Court may, ex mero motu or at the instance of any party dismiss such application» has given a liberal interpretation to the said Rule by providing the Court with a discretion not to dismiss the Petition in the case of non-compliance.

The said argument is based on the construction of the Court of Appeal Rules, as providing a discretion to Court to uphold an objection as opposed to Rule 46 of the Supreme Court Rules 1978, where such discretion was not provided.

Justice Shiran Gooneratne noted the Rule relating to the discretion of Court in consideration of surrounding circumstances cannot be outweighed by considerations which disregard the objective of the Rule.

He observed there is a clear and consistent non-compliance of the said Rule in the application submitted to Court. Accordingly, the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the procedure for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the strict compliance of which is imperative.

He upheld the Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondents and dismissed the Petitioner›s Application for non-compliance with Rule 3(1) (a), of the Court of Appeal Rules. Since this determination would decide the application pending before Court, it is not necessary to deal further with the rest of the Preliminary Objections raised by the Respondents. He made no order as to costs.

Uditha Egalahewa PC with N. K. Ashokbharan appeared for the Petitioner.

Instructed by G.G. Arulpragasam, K.Kanag Iswaran PC with Niranjan Arulpragasam appeared for Ranil Wickremesinghe and Suren Fernando appeared for Akila Viraj Kariyawasam. Senior Deputy Solicitor General Vikum de Abrew appeared for the Attorney General.