OFOR IKECHUKWU MICHAEL alias RABE LAWAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 371/2023, [2025] HKCA 581

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 371 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1227 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 15 July 2024 ([2024] HKCA 659). The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 7 November 2023 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.

3.  The applicant stated his grounds of appeal in his written submissions which may be summarised as follows:

(1)  Once a person is in the black list of the Black Axe group, other new members will carry out the request until the agenda is accomplished. Going back to Nigeria is pure suicide.

(2)  The government and the rich people shared the power of the police and army among themselves and left very few power to the millions of citizens in Nigeria.

4.  Having considered the papers of this case, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Analysis and Disposition

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  In the present application, the applicant only reiterated the problems he faced in Nigeria but did not identify any mistakes in our decision. He also failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion filed on 25 July 2024.