012-NLR-NLR-V-30-KEKULAWALA-v.-ATTORNEY–GENERAL.pdf
1911.
( 64 )
Present: Lascelles C.J. and Middleton J.
KEKULAWALA v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
340—D. O. Colombo, 31,856.
Appeal—Crown as party appellant—Security for costs.
Where the Crown is a party to an appeal the Crown is notbound to give security for respondent’s costs.
^^PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Colombo.
Walter Pereira, K.C. (with Akbar, C.C.), for Crown, appellant.
De Sampayo, K.C. (with Schneider), for respondent.
November 28, 1911. Lasceu.es C.J.—■
An objection has been taken against the hearing of this appeal,I think, without any confidence on the part of the objector, thatthe Crown ought to have given security for costs as a preliminaryto the hearing of this appeal. There is no doubt at all as to thepractice which has prevailed for a long time in our Courts. It hasbeen the invariable practice, as stated by the learned SolicitorGeneral, for the Crown to dispense with furnishing security forcosts if the Crown is the appellant. No instance has been citedto us of any case in which the Crown has given or has been requiredto give security for the costs of an appeal. The practice that theCrown should not give security for costs is eminently reasonable.The Crown cannot be compelled to pay costs, but it accepts as anact of grace the liability to pay costs if ordered to do so by acompetent Court. The respondent would have nothing at all togain by the Crown being required to give security for costs, andhe has, as a matter of fact, a perfect security that his costs will bepaid if he is entitled at law to have them. I do not think thatthe objection has any substance in it, and I think that the appealought to be heard.
Middleton J.—T agree.
Objection overruled.
♦