Re Robert Adjagba

CAMP 83/2019

[2020] HKCA 413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 83 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 872 OF 2017)

_______________

_______________

Before:  Hon Cheung, Barma and Au JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 6 January 2020

Date of Judgment:  4 June 2020

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 20 December 2019, this Court (Barma and Au JJA) handed down our judgment (“the Judgment”) [2019] HKCA 1437, refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 7 September 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 1982) (“the Deputy Judge’s Decision”).

2.We dismissed the applicant’s summons on the basis that his explanation for delay was without proof and lacked specifics and, in any event, the intended grounds of appeal contained no viable grounds of appeal against the Deputy Judge’s Decision. 

3.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

4.On 23 December 2019, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged his written submissions on 6 January 2020 to support this application pursuant to Master Au‑Yeung’s directions dated 27 December 2019.

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.In the applicant’s Notice of Motion, he simply stated that he wanted to challenge the Judgment as it was unreasonable.  Further, in the written submissions, he merely repeated his personal background and the explanation that his health condition prevented him from filing the application on time.

7.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, pursuant to the Practice Direction 2.1, we did not find any exceptional circumstance in this application to deviate from the usual practice and thus proceeded to consider this application on papers without any oral hearing.

8.In our view, this application is devoid of merit.

9.Nowhere in the applicant’s Notice of Motion or written submissions has he identified any errors in the Judgment.  He only repeated the submissions and complaints advanced but failed before this court in the appeal.  These are not viable grounds to challenge the Judgment.  On this basis alone, we will dismiss this application.

10.In any event, none of the questions raised by the applicant in the Notice of Motion or in his written submissions involve any question of great general or public importance such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) are therefore not met.

11.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person