The High Court refused an application by Ehi Salu, a minor, to extend the time for bringing judicial review proceedings over the handling of his refugee-status application. The court also said it would have declined judicial review on the merits even if the time limit had been extended.
Mr Justice Feeney’s judgment, delivered on 19 December 2006, concerned an asylum application Ehi made in February 2000, when he was eight. He was accompanied by his mother, Edith Salu, who had already applied for refugee status. Her account included a claim that she feared persecution by the Ogboni Society after refusing to join it. Those were her stated grounds; the judgment records no separate grounds identified for Ehi.
Ehi’s application was registered under a reference number linked to his mother’s. His mother provided the supporting details, but no questionnaire for Ehi was completed. In April 2003, the Department wrote to Edith about the refusal of the family’s refugee claim. The letter confirmed that no separate determination had been made for Ehi. His solicitors later argued that his application had not been investigated or decided and sought confirmation that it would be considered individually.
The judicial review proceedings began on 8 August 2003, outside the statutory 14-day period. The court accepted that there was good and sufficient reason to extend time through 5 June 2003 and for a short period afterwards, allowing for legal advice and a response to the solicitors’ letter. It found no sufficient explanation for the further delay until August and refused the extension.
On the substantive challenge, the court followed the approach taken in earlier High Court decisions in Nwole and Dada. It held that the authorities could treat an accompanied child’s asylum application as part of a parent’s application where no distinct facts or circumstances had been raised for the child. On the evidence before it, Ehi’s identified grounds had been considered with his mother’s claim, and there was no obligation to interview him or consider his application separately.
The court therefore said it would have refused judicial review even if it had extended time. It did not decide whether a stay should be granted pending the Supreme Court appeal in Nwole; it directed that the parties be heard on that question.