RE KENENNA CHIGOZIE CHUKWUJEKWU

CAMP 353/2021

[2022] HKCA 644

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 353 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 169 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (Out of Time)

1.  On 30 December 2021, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA)  dismissed the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 16 June 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

2.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 13 January 2022, for leave to appeal out of time against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has not lodged written submissions in support of the application by the stipulated deadline under the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals. 

3.  Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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.  In his notice of motion, the applicant merely stated :

‘ I would like to reject and review the decision made by the Court and Torture Claims Appeal Board. They disregard my dangerous situation.’

II.  Legal principles

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘Ordinance’)  states that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

III.  Our view

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion 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)  of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his documents.

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

IV.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion is dismissed.