|
CACV 191/2020
[2021] HKCA 142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 191 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1377 OF 2018)
________________________
| RE: |
DIOUF NDONGO |
Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung, Chu JJA and G Lam J in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
10 December 2020 |
| Date of Decision: |
2 February 2021 |
_________________
D E C I S I O N
_________________
Hon G Lam J (giving the Decision of the Court):
1. On 20 November 2020, this Court (Cheung JA and G Lam J) handed down a judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 9 June 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.
2. The facts and arguments in the appeal before this Court, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 27 November 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. In the notice of motion, the applicant complained that he has problems in his country. He stated that he cannot go back because danger still exists for him. He asked to be given time to stay in Hong Kong to solve his problems.
5. The applicant lodged written submissions on 10 December 2020, in which he stated he was not satisfied with the decision given by the Board as it had ignored many things relating to his case. He claimed that there was much difference between what the Board thought and the actual situation in his home country. He said torture and deaths of innocent people held in police custody were common there and that his life would be in danger if he were to return. He said his well‑wishers in his country were doing their best to solve his problems but at this moment it was not possible for him to go back.
6. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one that, because of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.
7. The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b). Nor is there any such question apparent from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions.
8. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 27 November 2020 is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Judge of the Court
of First Instance |
The Applicant, unpresented, acting in person
|