Read the full judgment text of CACV 247/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 15 November 2019.
3. The Director’s representative had an interview with the appellant and considered the documents relating to the subsequent claim. The officer concluded that s.37ZO(2) was not satisfied. The mere provision of receipts showing that the appellant had stayed in different places in the country was not proof that he had been threatened, and if the kidnapping did take place, there would have been ample opportunity for the perpetrators to seriously harm or kill him which they did not take. Further,
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases