12 May 2026
Refusal of the extension of time: although the delay was short, the applicant's explanation was doubtful and, crucially, the intended appeal had no reasonably arguable merit; accordingly no extension was granted and no need to address prejudice.
24 Mar 2026
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to demonstrate any prospects of success, and the Notice of Motion was filed substantially out of time.
2 Mar 2026
The applicant's grounds were vague, generic and failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision; the TCAB properly applied legal principles, made permissible adverse credibility findings and properly assessed relocation as viable; there was therefore no reasonably arguable case and leave is refused.
11 Feb 2026
The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed out of time without adequate explanation and, on the merits, the Board had lawfully and reasonably concluded there was no real risk of persecution on return to Gambia; therefore no extension of time should be granted and leave was refused.
30 Jan 2026
Extension refused because applicant offered no valid explanation for the (short) delay, failed to provide evidence for asserted changed circumstances, and the intended appeal lacked any realistic prospect of success; change of circumstances should be pursued under s.37ZO rather than judicial review of the Board's decision.
25 Sept 2025
The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and, critically, failed to show any reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review or any error of law by the court or the Board; accordingly no extension of time should be granted for a hopeless appeal.
12 Sept 2025
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant raised new grounds late and outside the time limits, failed to comply with Registrar's directions, provided only bare assertions without particulars or evidence, and did not identify any legal error or question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
10 Feb 2025
The applicant failed to identify any error in the judge's decision and therefore did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded against the applicant.
27 Aug 2024
The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant's 53‑day delay was not adequately or credibly explained or supported by evidence, and the proposed appeal had no real or reasonable prospect of success; consequently there was no basis to exercise discretion to extend time and the late application was dismissed with costs.
30 Jul 2024
The Court held the Judge's view that he was functus officio was misplaced because rules permit setting aside orders and Order 59 provides power to deal with extensions, but the applicant failed to satisfactorily explain the substantial delay and failed to show any real prospect of success for the intended appeal; therefore extension of time was refused and the renewed summons dismissed.