The Court of Appeal recently held that if a stay order issued by the Court is alleged to have been improperly extended, any objection to such an extension must be substantiated with an affidavit. The Court emphasized that judicial and official acts are presumed to have been lawfully and regularly performed, and mere claims or …
Objection to Non-extension of ‘Stay Order’ Requires Affidavit – CA
The Court of Appeal recently held that if a stay order issued by the Court is alleged to have been improperly extended, any objection to such an extension must be substantiated with an affidavit. The Court emphasized that judicial and official acts are presumed to have been lawfully and regularly performed, and mere claims or submissions made from the bar are insufficient to invalidate such orders.
In the case in question, the Court had initially granted interim stay orders on 13th December 2024, pending the determination of a writ application. These stay orders were due to lapse on 23rd January 2025. On that date, the Court allowed a party to file limited objections and extended the stay orders until 7th March 2025, the next date of inquiry.
However, a motion was subsequently filed by one of the respondents on 28th January 2025, asserting that the stay orders had been extended without a proper application for such an extension. When the matter was mentioned on 11th February 2025, counsel for the petitioner maintained that an application for the extension had in fact been made, and the Court’s journal entry from 23rd January 2025 confirmed that the extension had been granted.
“…Under section 114(d) of the Evidence Ordinance where the Court may presume that the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If the learned Counsel for the 5th Respondent takes up the position that the proceedings of 23/01/2025 is defective on the basis that there is no application for the extension of the stay order, that has to be objected to with an affidavit. It appears to this court that the Petitioner has not filed an affidavit challenging the Court proceedings. In the case of Jayaweera vs Assistant Com of Agrarian Services it was observed by the Court of Appeal that; “(1) There is a presumption that official and legal Acts are regularly and correctly performed. (2) It is not open to the Petitioner to file a convenient and self-serving affidavit for the first time before the Court of Appeal and thereby seek to contradict either a quasi judicial act or judicial act.” In those circumstances it is the view of this Court that the extension of the stay order by this Court on 23/01/2025 is lawfully correct….” – Justice Mohammed Laffar
Case No: CA/WRT/0775/2024 [ Decided on 07.03.2025]
Before: M. T. MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J. (Act. P/CA) and K. M. S. Dissanayake, J.
