Re Mutyaba Robert

CACV 540/2019

[2020] HKCA 583

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 540 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1726/2018)

____________________

____________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Barma and Au JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  19 June 2020

Date of Judgment:  22 July 2020

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 9 June 2020, the Applicant filed his Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Lam VP and Barma JA) judgment of 29 April 2020.

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.The Applicant has set out the following ground in his Notice of Motion to support the application for leave to appeal to the CFA:

“ On 29 April 2020 the Honourable Judges of the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I do not agree with him. I did not get fair judgment. To get a fair judgement I want to apply to the Court of Final Appeal. Please send my application to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.The Notice of Motion does not raise any discernible, let alone viable, grounds of appeal.

5.On 19 June 2020 the Applicant lodged his written submissions. We have read the same.  The submissions were attempts to regurgitate his arguments concerning the Director and the Board’s decisions which had duly been rejected by DHCJ Lung. 

6.In the submissions, he did not address or advance any challenge to this Court’s reasons for dismissal of his appeal.  As such, the Applicant’s submissions do not raise any viable grounds for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment of 29 April 2020.

7.He also referred to some new developments.  However, there is no evidence to support his assertions and there is no basis for linking those assertions with his personal situation which, on his own case, stemmed from the land dispute with his uncle.  He did not address the point made in [25] of the judgment of 29 April 2020.

8.We do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.

9.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA.  We would dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.

The applicant acting in person