RE KIGULA RICHARD

CAMP 157/2022, [2024] HKCA 592

On appeal from [2021] HKCFI 876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 157 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2905 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 30 December 2022, this court (Kwan VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ CP Pang dated 8 April 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 7 March 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that he sought “an extension of time [to appeal]” because he needed to process his dependency visa through his wife, and that he was still “in fear to return to [his] country” because there were still people there allegedly posing a threat to his life.

4.  In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions with the court.  He is therefore debarred from lodging and relying upon any written submissions.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The Notice of Motion was filed out of time and there was no explanation on the part of the applicant for the delay therein, nor in his affidavit filed on the same date.  The delay of over 1 month is not insignificant, and the Notice of Motion is liable to be dismissed on this basis alone.  However, on this occasion, we have decided to focus instead on the merits of the application.

7.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

8.  The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 7 March 2023 is dismissed.