Re Iqbal Muhammad and Others

CAMP 124/2024, [2025] HKCA 946

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 124 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 314 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 1 September 2025, this court handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 778)  refusing to extend the time for the 1^st to 5^th applicants to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 9 January 2024 which dismissed their application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 15 September 2025, the 1^st to 5^th applicants filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The 1^st applicant has lodged a written submission on behalf of himself and the 2^nd to 5^th applicants to support the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the 1^st to 5^th applicants’ claims have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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.The grounds for the application set out in the Notice of Motion are the same as the written submissions.  In brief, the applicants, through the 1^st applicant, contend that:

(1)  There is an error in the judgment having regard to the situation in that they would be harmed, tortured or even killed by the 1^st applicant’s step siblings over the land dispute.

(2)  Land disputes are common and prevalent in both rural and urban Pakistan, with illegal dispossession committed by influential people.  Dispute resolution in Pakistan is usually through informal means.

(3)  It is still not safe for the 1^st applicant and his family to return to Pakistan.  Their situation is worrying because the 1^st applicant’s step siblings have some influence in their home town, are well connected and therefore in a position to carry out their threats.

(4)  Relocation is not viable for the 1^st applicant and his family as they will have to live like fugitives to avoid being caught. They do not have relatives or friends who can support them.  Pakistanis do not readily move around, hence new faces always attract attention and it is easy for the applicants to be identified and located by the 1^st applicant’s step siblings.

(5)  The police and the government cannot protect them because they do not want to get involved in land disputes, which are so prevalent.

7.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the 1^st to 5^th applicants do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal.  Critically, all the grounds of application and the submissions relate solely to the circumstances and facts of their claims.  No question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance, has been identified.  Further, these grounds are unarguable for the reasons we gave in [30] to [44] of our judgment.

8.We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The 1^st to 5^th applicants, unrepresented, acting in person.