Mr Washimba told the court that he had served as a guard with Congo president (dictator) Mobutu Sese Seko but fled the Congo in 1997 after President Kabila took power as he was afraid he would be victimised.

He had been granted asylum in Nigeria but had left that country claiming that his safety was threatened owing to the presence of Congolese security officers.

Mr Washimba then went to Libya where he was recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR. But since he was not granted sufficient protection, he made his way to Malta where he arrived in June 2006 and requested asylum.

His request was dismissed by the Refugees' Commission on the basis that he had failed to give sufficient evidence that he had worked with the former Mobutu regime.  Mr Washimba appealed to the Appeals Board for refugees whcih had, in August 2007 dismissed his appeal on the basis that it was inadmissible.

Mr Washimba then filed a suit before the First Hall of the Civil Court asking that court to declare that the Appeals Board's decision was null and void because it was based upon a wrong interpretation of the law.

He also asked the court to remit the case back to the Appeals Board for a new judgment.

In June 2009 the court dismissed Mr Washimba's case and he filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Raymond C Pace and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia.

Mr Washimba complained that the Appeals Board had made a wrong interpretation of the law governing refugee status.

On appeal the Court of Appeal said that the question of admissibility or otherwise of an application for asylum was left up to the immigration officer who had interviewed the applicant and then up to the Refugees' commission which would give a final ruling.

The Appeals Board was not competent to decide whether an application for asylum was admissible or not, for that Board could only decide upon the merits of an application and not on procedural aspects.

In this case it did not result that Mr Washimba had been formally interviewed in accordance with the law.  No written report was drawn up to the effect that his application for asylum was inadmissible, and the Appeals Board was only supposed to decide upon the merits of his application.

The Court of Appeal concluded by upholding Mr Washimba's appeal and by finding that the Appeals Board had exceeded its powers at law.

The court revoked the Apppeals Board's decision and remitted the case back to the board for a decision on the merits of the case.