Re Diallo Amadou

CACV 291/2024, [2026] HKCA 559

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1355 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Decision of the Court):

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 27 January 2025, this Court (Cheung JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 4 July 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it were set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here. Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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.

3.The applicant applied, by a notice of motion filed on 24 February 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following:

“I don’t agree with the Judgment. I want to appeal at final court of appeal.”

4.Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 24 February 2025, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions by the stipulated deadline.  The applicant is deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.

II.     Our view

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.The applicant did not identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant. 

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.     Disposition

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 24 February 2025 is dismissed.

The applicant, acting in person.