Court of Appeal rejects motion filed by petitioner in Pentara condominium case

Thursday, 9 April 2026 00:02 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

The Court of Appeal on 30 March 2026 rejected a motion filed by Petitioner Sirimalee Liyanagama in an ongoing writ application challenging the Pentara condominium project.

The matter was taken up to consider a motion filed by the petitioner after the case had already been fixed for order. Along with the motion, the petitioner had presented a news article referring to an alleged internal report from the Urban Development Authority (UDA) concerning the Pentara project.

However, the Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the UDA informed court that the purported report cited in the article was not an official document of the authority. It was further noted that the document was unsigned and therefore could not be accepted as evidence.

In a further development, parties brought to the court’s attention that the petitioner had failed to disclose that the news article submitted was in fact authored by herself. The court was informed that the document had been presented in a manner suggesting it was an independent media report.

Taking these factors into consideration, the Court of Appeal refused to entertain the motion filed by the Petitioner.

Attorney-at-Law Shantha Jayawardana appeared for the Petitioner, Sirimalee Liyanagama.

President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, together with Naamiq Nafath, Akalanka Ukwatta and Shamith Fernando appeared for Home Lands Property Investments Ltd., – the 9th Respondent, President’s Counsel Kushan De Alwis, together with Shanaka Cooray and Rajiv Wijesinghe appeared for Home Lands Skyline Ltd., – the 7th Respondent and President’s Counsel Eraj De Silva, together with Daminda Wijayaratne and Sanjana Mapatuna appeared for Home Lands Holding Ltd., – the 8th Respondent instructed by Sudath Perera Associates.

Deputy Solicitor General Chaya Sri Nammuni appeared for the Urban Development Authority.