The Supreme Court has held that a Commercial High Court can hear and punish for contempt of court, whether the alleged misconduct happens inside or outside the courtroom. The decision came in July 2025, providing a clear interpretation of how contempt powers work both before and after the new Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024.

Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena, delivering the judgment with Justices P. Padman Surasena and Arjuna Obeyesekere agreeing, explained that this authority existed even before the new law was enacted. It flows from section 2(3) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990, read with section 18 of the Judicature Act, which empowers a High Court to deal with “any offence of contempt committed against or in disrespect of its authority.”

The Court made it clear that this includes both in facie curiae (in the face of the court) and ex facie curiae (outside court) contempt. Justice Samayawardhena stated:

“I hold that section 18 of the Judicature Act applies to offences of contempt … of any High Court … whether such contempt is committed in facie curiae or ex facie curiae.”

This means that even before the 2024 Act, a Commercial High Court already had full power to act when its orders were violated, whether the disobedience took place within court premises or outside.

The case arose from proceedings filed in the Commercial High Court of Colombo under sections 224 and 225 of the Companies Act, No. 7 of 2007, alleging oppression and mismanagement in a company’s affairs.

During the case, the Court issued an interim order restraining certain parties from preventing a director from functioning in that role, on condition that Rs. 500,000 be deposited as security. Later, the same court was informed that the order had been disobeyed, and an application was made to punish the parties for contempt.

The parties accused of contempt argued that the Commercial High Court had no power to hear contempt committed “out of court.” They contended that such powers were confined only to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

The High Court rejected this argument, holding that it could proceed with the contempt application. The issue was then referred to the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether a High Court exercising civil jurisdiction under Act No. 10 of 1996 could hear contempt cases involving alleged violations of its own orders.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the power of the Commercial High Court to hear contempt cases relating to the violation of its own orders.

Justice Samayawardhena reasoned that the High Court’s contempt power was not limited to misconduct occurring in the courtroom. He observed that section 18 of the Judicature Act, which uses the words “any offence of contempt committed against or in disrespect of its authority”, was broad enough to include both in-court and out-of-court contempt.

The Court therefore answered the main legal question in the affirmative, confirming that the Commercial High Court, as a Provincial High Court under Article 154P of the Constitution, possesses the power to punish for contempt whether it occurs in facie curiae or ex facie curiae.

Justice Samayawardhena concluded the ruling by directing the High Court to “conclude the contempt inquiry and main inquiry as expeditiously as possible.”

Court of Appeal’s broader powers under the 2024 Act

The Supreme Court also highlighted the changes introduced by the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024, which has since clarified and expanded the Court of Appeal’s powers. Under section 6(3) of the Act,

“The Court of Appeal shall have the power to punish for contempt of a Court of First Instance … whether committed in its presence or hearing or elsewhere.”

This means the Court of Appeal now has concurrent jurisdiction to hear contempt involving any Court of First Instance, whether the contempt occurs inside the courtroom or outside, while the original court retains its own power to act.

The Supreme Court noted that punishments under the new law must always be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and that unlike under the old framework, no fixed limits now apply to imprisonment or fines.

From Primary Courts to High Courts, All Must Follow Civil Procedure Code for Contempt

The Supreme Court has ruled that every court of first instance, from the High Court down to the Primary Court , must now follow the summary procedure laid out in Chapter LXV of the Civil Procedure Code when handling contempt of court cases.

Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena clarified that the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024 brings uniformity to how contempt proceedings are conducted across all courts, regardless of whether they exercise civil or criminal jurisdiction.

“…Accordingly, in terms of section 11, all High Courts, District Courts, Family Courts, Small Claims Courts, Magistrates’ Courts, and Primary Courts are required to follow the procedure set out in Chapter LXV of the Civil Procedure Code, irrespective of whether the alleged contempt committed is in facie curiae or ex facie curiae. This includes, for example, acts such as the intentional insult or interruption of a Judge during the course of judicial proceedings, an offence identified in section 223 of the Penal Code, read with section 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act in relation to the District Court and Magistrate’s Court, and section 392 read with section 135(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act in relation to the High Court. It also extends to the giving of false evidence in the High Court and the other courts, as contemplated in sections 448 and 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act. This represents a departure from the previous legal position, under which procedural requirements for contempt varied depending on the forum and the nature of the alleged act. Section 11 now establishes a uniform procedural regime, thereby enhancing consistency, fairness, and legal certainty in contempt proceedings across all courts of first instance including the High Courts…” – Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 

Case No.: SC/CHC/APPEAL/18/2018 [Decided 23.07.2025]
Before: P. Padman Surasena,CJ., Mahinda Samayawardhena,J., Arjuna Obeyesekere,J.