RE ROBERT ADJAGBA

HCAL 872/2017

[2019] HKCFI 821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 872 OF 2017

______________

______________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  On 7 September 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The applicant then by a summons issued on 22 October 2018 sought leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to lodge his appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 21 September 2018, and hence he was late by about one month.

3.  On 23 January 2019 I refused to extend time for the applicant to appeal and dismissed his summons for the reasons that his delay was not insubstantial for which he failed to provide any good reason, and that there was no prospect of success in his intended appeal in the absence of any reasonably arguable ground of appeal proposed by him either in his summons or affirmation or at the hearing.

4.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 13 February 2019 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as he was again late with his appeal, this time by about one week outside the 14-day period under the said rule. 

5.  In his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he was late for medical reason as he was then bedridden with a cold and a fever and was unable to get his mail on the ground floor of the building of his residence.  He did not provide any medical evidence in support of his claim of which I do have reservation that he was unable to check on his mail due to a cold and a fever, but as a delay of one week may not be said to be inordinate or excessive in the circumstances, I propose to consider whether there is any merit in his intended appeal.

6.  However, as with his last application the applicant again did not provide any draft or proposed ground of appeal, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was considered as unfair or unreasonable. As such and in the absence of any reasonably arguable ground, I am unable to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

7.  In the premises it would be futile to extend time for what appears to me a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.