The claimant was a Rwandan national who had been persecuted there, resulting in the confiscation by a colonel of a petrol station that his family owned. The Claimant fled to neighbouring Uganda where he successfully gained refugee status. It was the result of two events which followed, in Uganda, that the claimant then made an application for asylum in the United Kingdom. The claimant maintained that he was under a real risk of harm, in violation of his human rights and Refugee Convention rights if he were ordered to return to Uganda. The risk was said to arise from those that confiscated his petrol station thinking that otherwise he would attempt to recover it. The defendant Secretary of State refused the claimant’s asylum application on the ground that his account lacked credibility. The matter was subsequently heard by a single immigration judge who upheld the refusal on the same ground. The immigration judge rejected the central basis of the claimant’s claim, namely that the colonel and his henchmen would continue to persecute the claimant especially after a number of years had passed since the confiscation of the petrol station had taken place. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The claimant submitted, inter alia, that his account before the immigration judge had been consistent in light of the objective evidence, and on that basis, the finding that his account was not credible had been an improper assessment of his asylum claim.