Court allows second contempt application in land dispute case

The District Court of Mount Lavinia has allowed summons to proceed on a second application for contempt of court in a long-standing land dispute involving contested ownership and alleged violations of court orders. 

This contempt application arises in the context of a long-pending case in which the Plaintiff seeks a declaration of title and ejectment, on the basis that the leave and licence granted to the Defendant had been cancelled and that the Defendant had overstayed the licence period. The Plaintiff is also seeking damages for unlawful occupation and an order of ejectment against the Defendant. 

The Defendant–Respondent, however, claims that she did not obtain possession from the Plaintiff but from another party, said to be the lawful owner of the property, who is currently residing overseas and claims title through succession. 

The Plaintiff–Petitioner, Nalini Niranjani Ball, has instituted contempt proceedings against the Defendant–Respondent, Ivon Gunasekara, alleging that the latter carried out unauthorised development and structural alterations to the disputed property in defiance of a subsisting court order. 

At an earlier stage of the proceedings, the District Court had recorded findings that the Defendant was altering the status quo of the premises and undertaking structural changes. Consequently, the court issued an order restraining the Defendant from carrying out any alterations without prior court approval. 

However, during the recently concluded trial, the Defendant admitted under cross-examination by Senior Counsel Ian Fernando that she had proceeded with alterations in violation of the court order. She testified that she had spent approximately Rs.125,000 on contractors and materials and an additional Rs.200,000 on further work, thereby altering the premises contrary to the restraint order. 

Counsel Roshanara Fernando, appearing for the Plaintiff–Petitioner, submitted that the Defendant’s conduct disclosed a series of deliberate acts amounting to contempt of court. She contended that the Defendant’s admissions in the witness box, coupled with prior conduct, demonstrated a wilful disregard for the authority of the court and the rule of law. 

The matter has been fixed for January 9, 2026, as the notice returnable date for the contempt charge to be read out.

Counsel Roshanara Fernando appeared for the Plaintiff–Petitioner, instructed by Derek Fernando Associates.