Tue, 21 May 2024 Today's Paper

Gamage cries foul at Geetha


25 June 2017 07:25 pm - 1     - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}


Piyasena Gamage, the UPFA’s next in line Candidate in the Galle District at the 2015 Parliamentary Election intervened in the Appeal filed in the Supreme Court by Galle District UPFA Parliamentarian Geetha Kumarasinghe, who had challenged the Court of Appeal judgment.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justices Eva Wanasundera and Upaly Abeyrathne fixed for July 7 to be taken up this matter along with Geetha Kumasinghe’s appeal.

He filed intervention papers crying foul at her for the failure to name him as a Respondent, whereas he should have been named to the appeal application.

He alleged that she had been guilty of fraudulently suppressing material facts from the Court. He is among others seeking the Court to dismiss her appeal in limine and to vacate the Interim Order granted by the Supreme Court staying the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

A motion in limine is a motion filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case.

Intervenient-Petitioner Piyasena Gamage states at the August 2015 General Election, he received the 7th highest number of preferential votes among the UPFA candidates in the Galle District.

He states Geetha Kumarasinghe received 5th highest number of preferential votes thus secured a seat and the Court of Appeal on 3rd May 2017 issued a Writ of Quo Warranto against her and that she was thus disqualified from continuing to hold office.

On 4th May 2017, he was informed by the Secretary of the UPFA that he would be appointed as the MP to fill the said seat fallen vacant.

He cited Supreme Court Rules wherein there shall be named a respondent, the party or parties in whose favor the judgment or order complained against was delivered or adversely to whom such application is preferred, and the names and present addresses of all such respondents shall be set out in full.

He contends that he is a party whose interest may be adversely affected by the success of the appeal, and he should thus have been named as a Respondent in accordance with the terms of Supreme Court Rules.

He impugns the failure to do so is a clear violation of the Supreme Court Rules, due procedure and natural justice and warrants the vacating and/or setting aside the Interim Order issued and the dismissal of the appeal.

The Supreme Court on15th May 2017 granted Special Leave to Appeal with the application filed by Ms Kumarasinghe seeking to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which disqualified her as a Member of Parliament on her impugned dual citizenship.

In the majority decision of the Bench comprising Justices Eva Wanasundera, Upaly Abeyrathne and Anil Gooneratne, the Court extended the Interim Order staying till final determination the operation of the Court of Appeal judgment. Hearing is fixed for September 25. S.S. (Selvanayagam)

  Comments - 1

  • Bugs Bunny Monday, 26 June 2017 08:39 AM

    She certainly isn't a fowl !!!

Add comment

Comments will be edited (grammar, spelling and slang) and authorized at the discretion of Daily Mirror online. The website also has the right not to publish selected comments.

Reply To:

Name - Reply Comment