Kisambale Pius Henry v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 1104/2021

[2026] HKCFI 5540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1104 OF 2021

____________

BETWEEN

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.By way of summons filed on 16 June 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 22 April 2026, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 21 July 2021.

2.Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, stipulates that “Where an application for leave is refused by a judge …, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order”.

3.In Re Li Jing [2015] 2 HKLRD 933, it was held that the time for lodging an appeal against the refusal of granting leave to apply for judicial review started to run from the date of the making of the order, not from the date when the sealed order was issued, nor from the date when the sealed order was mailed, and no account should be taken of the fact that the applicant received the sealed order late (see also Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226).

4.As my order was made on 22 April 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 6 May 2026. Thus, the time for appealing against my order has expired, and the applicant requires leave from this court to appeal out of time.

The applicable law

5.In considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board and another [2020] HKCA 844).

6.However, the crucial consideration in such an application is whether the applicant can show that there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur, supra), and the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued (see Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702).

Discussion

7.In the Summons, the applicant explained his delay in lodging the appeal by saying that he received the court’s judgment on 22 April 2026, he did not “prepare money” and he did not get any letter from the court about his case.

8.At the hearing of the Summons on 20 August 2026, the applicant was absent but he arrived at the court after the hearing. The applicant then wrote a letter to this court dated 27 August 2026 to request for another hearing. I acceded to his request and the case was fixed for another hearing on 18 September 2026.

9.At the hearing on 18 September 2026, the applicant further explained his delay by saying that he did not receive this court’s letter and he did not know that he had to appeal. However, when I asked the applicant how he came to know that this court made a decision against him, he replied that he did not know a decision was made against him and he attended the hearing because he received a phone call to ask him to attend the hearing on 18 September 2026. He did not even know what application he was making except that he was asking this court to permit him to stay here.

10.The applicant further said that he had no idea that he was late in appealing as he did not receive any letter from this court telling him whether he should appeal or not. When I asked the applicant whether he had received a letter enclosing this court’s decision, he said “No”. However, when I showed him the Summons, the applicant confirmed that it was written by him and he knew that he was applying for time to appeal. He did not know anything else to say, but he apologized to this court and said that he would not be late again.

11.I then pointed out to him that in the Summons, he gave the reason for his lateness by saying that he did not “prepare money”. The applicant then agreed that it was the reason for his lateness in appealing. I also pointed out to the applicant that in the Summons, he said that he received this court’s decision on 22 April 2026. The applicant agreed with that as well.

12.The applicant’s explanations at the oral hearing are clearly not consistent with the reasons given in the Summons. It is inconceivable that he did not receive this court’s decision and did not know what application he was making when he admitted that he wrote the Summons himself. Thus, there was no satisfactory reason given by the applicant for his lateness in filing the intended appeal at all.

13.Moreover, the applicant did not give any valid ground for his intended appeal. In his supporting affirmation dated 16 June 2026, the applicant simply said that his life was in danger because he was working with government and the “Big Boss” was looking for him to kill him. At the oral hearing on 18 September 2026, when I asked the applicant for his grounds of appeal, he simply said that he would like to be here because it was safe for him and he wanted to gather evidence to show me the situation in his country. These cannot be valid grounds for his intended appeal.

14.For this application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that this court had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before this court or was otherwise plainly wrong (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

15.The applicant has failed to demonstrate any of the above, and hence there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal.

16.As there is no satisfactory explanation for the applicant’s delay in lodging the intended appeal, and there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal, I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal.

Conclusion

17.For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.

The applicant appearing in person