Re Nnaji Charles Anayo

CACV 521/2024, [2026] HKCA 1197

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 3244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 521 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 798/2024)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

The Court:

1.On 4 June 2025, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 21 November 2024 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 9 June 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant repeated that his life would be in danger should he be refouled, and that his country “is still unstable”.  He also contended, without elaboration or particulars, that this court’s judgment dated 4 June 2025 contained an “error of law” and that there was “procedural unfairness”.

4.In breach of Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions in support of the Notice of Motion.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.The Notice of Motion does not identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 9 June 2025 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person