Petitioner

Multinational Property Development Ltd v. Urban Development Authority

Justice Ranarajah
“In the public law field, individuals may not have strictly enforceable rights but they have
legitimate expectations. Decisions affecting such legitimate expectations are subject to
judicial review.”

Sirimal and others v. Board of the Directors of the Cooperative Wholesale Est
Substantive legitimate expectation refers to where a favorable decision of one kind or
another is expected by the party bound to receive such benefit.

Samarakoon and others v UGC

Justice Shirani Bandaranayake
“Legitimate expectation derives from an undertaking given by someone in authority and
such undertaking may no be expressed and would have to be known from surrounding
circumstances”

Wickremaratne v Jayaratne and other

Justice Gunawardane
It is the fact that the legitimate expectation arises against the state itself (on the basis
the state must be held to have acted through its officers, who are agents of the state)
that makes the expectations enforceable against the state.

APPH v Wednesbury Corporation

2nd limb of the wednesbury test of unreasonableness
Had not given relevance to facts that were relevant and worthy of being considered in
the decision making process.
Respondent

Sirimal and others v Board of Directors of the Cooperative Wholesale Est

Justice Weerasuriya
Even if the expectation is reasonable and legitimate there may be good reasons for the
public body to act in terms of policy considerations which may frustrate legitimate
expectations.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Traditional grounds of review may require attention to be directed to the relative weight
accorded to interests and considerations.

Section 12 and 13 of the State Land Recovery of Possession Act No. 7 of 1979
- Action in vindication may be maintained against the state
12. Nothing in this Act contained shall preclude any person who has been ejected from
a land under the provisions of this Act or any such persons claiming to be the owner
thereof from instituting an action against the state for the vindication of his title thereto
within six months from the date of the order of ejectment.
13. Where an action instituted under section 12 by any person against the state for
vindication of title to any land from which he has been ejected under this Act has been
decided in favor of such person, such person shall be entitled to recover a reasonable
compensation for the damage sustained by reason of his having been compelled to
deliver up possession of such land.

Ihalapthirane v. Bulankulame
A very strict regime has therefore been put in place by the legislature as ‘the clear
object of the state land recovery of possession act is to secure possession of such
lands by expeditious machinery without recourse to an ordinary civil action’.

APPH v Wednesbury Corporation

2nd limb of the wednesbury test of unreasonableness
Had not given relevance to facts that were relevant and worthy of being considered in
the decision making process.