Egbolibe Daniel v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 374/2022, [2025] HKCA 580

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1078

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 374 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2324 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

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

1.This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 1 March 2023 ([2023] HKCA 250). The Court of Appeal refused to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 19 April 2022 dismissing the application for leave to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged his written submissions on 2 August 2024. Having considered his written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3.The applicant stated the following as his grounds in the Notice of Motion filed on 22 July 2024:

“I would like to infomr [sic] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL [sic] Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual [sic] life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL [sic] Information. The Officer and cours [sic] prefers to ignore the overwheming [sic] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary [sic] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.His written submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  high standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker;

(2)  the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing his credibility.

Analysis and disposition

5.Under section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the Ordinance”), application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from. Good grounds have to be shown by the applicant for the court to grant an extension of time pursuant to section 24(5) of the Ordinance (Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at §1.4).

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

7.The applicant was late for more than one year in filing the Notice of Motion. His delay is very substantial. He explained in his supporting affirmation that he did not receive the judgment within the time stipulated for appeal.

8.A copy of the judgment was sent by the court to the applicant’s address by post on the date of handing down on 1 March 2023, and it was not returned by the post office. It is the duty of a litigant to give the court an address to which correspondence or notice can come to his attention in a timely manner. The consequence of any delay or failure occasioned by the ineffectiveness of such an address would fall on the shoulder of the litigant (Re Hasmi Rizwan Imran [2018] HKCA 439, at §15). The applicant did not give sufficient particulars about when he actually received the judgment or how he got to know about the outcome of his application. Under these circumstances, his explanation cannot justify his substantial delay and there is no good ground for this court to grant extension of time for him to file the Notice of Motion.

9.In any event, the applicant’s grounds in the present application were not raised in the leave application before the Court of First Instance or in his previous application before this court. It is not open to the applicant to put forward these grounds for the first time at this late stage of the proceedings, well outside the time limit for bringing judicial review proceedings. Furthermore, his grounds are just bare assertions without particulars and evidence in support.

10.The applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time and dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 22 July 2024.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person