RE VICTOR VITUS CHIZOBA

CAMP 175/2020

[2021] HKCA 1187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 175 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1697 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 25 June 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 20 December 2019 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 21 July 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  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 may be granted if 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.  The applicant stated in the notice of motion that he was and is still “a victim of bomb blast” and “involved in politics” which lead him to relocate to Hong Kong.  He asked this Court to review his case again. 

7.  In the letter attached to the notice of motion, the applicant further stated that: (i) he was a survivor of a 2009 bomb blast masterminded by the Boko Haram that killed his relatives and many others; (ii) the Boko Haram has since restructured to become another terrorist group called “Heads Men”) and is continuing to terrorize his country; (iii) he was involved in politics, having volunteered as an official in the 2007/8 election, and is not an ordinary citizen; (iv) after the present governor came to power, most of the electoral officials had been kidnapped and some found dead; and (v) with the governor in authority, police would not protect them, and he fears there is no assurance of adequate security if he were to return to his home country. 

8.  What is stated in notice of motion and the letter attached does not constitute proper grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Importantly, they all relate to the circumstances of the applicant’s claim.  They do not involve any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Further, the Torture Claims Appeal Board had held that the applicant fabricated his claim in relation to the Boko Haram and his involvement in politics.  For the reasons we gave in [17] to [20] of our judgment, the matters put forward in the notice of motion and the attached letter are unarguable.     

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we refuse the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.