Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2905/2019

[2021] HKCFI 3237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2905 OF 2019

_____________

RE:
	KIGULA RICHARD	Applicant

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Suffiad in Chambers

Date of Decision: 5 November 2021

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The Applicant, by summons filed on 11 June 2021, applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C. P. Pang (“the Court”) given on 8 April 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing non-refoulement claim protection to the Applicant.

2.The 14 day period for the Applicant to file his appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 22 April 2021 and hence he was over one and a half months late with his intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing to grant leave for judicial review, a court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if extension of time were granted.

4.In the Applicant’s case, the delay of over one and a half month is not insignificant. The Applicant explained in a letter attached to his summons and affidavit that the reason for the delay was because he was not able to file his documents to the right window or office in reference to the 14 days after the order was passed on 8 April 2021 and he had to go through the process a second time. Even if he had gone to the wrong window for filing, it cannot explain the delay of one and a half month. I do not accept his explanation.

5.The court record shows that the decision of the Court was sent on the same day it was given to the last reported address of the Applicant (which is the same address given by the Applicant on his present summons) with no indication that the letter to the Applicant was not properly delivered to the Applicant.

6.As for the prospect of the intended appeal, the Applicant has not put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal. Neither has the Applicant alluded to any particulars of any error of law in the decision of the Court or why it can be said that the decision of the Court was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons, the affidavit in support or in the letter attached. All that was said by the Applicant in the letter attached to his affidavit was that he wished to appeal because he felt that the court should use more evidence from the current situation prevailing in Uganda where the political situation has worsened so as to give him a chance since he has nowhere else to seek protection.

7.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

8.This being an application to extend time to appeal against the decision of the Court, it is for the Applicant to show that there is a reasonably arguable appeal. This he has not done. Merely regurgitating facts which has already been dealt with is not sufficient to show an arguable appeal.

9.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what would appear to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Court and dismiss the summons.