RP001152017

This is an appeal brought by the Secretary of State. For convenience we will refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal ("the FTT").

The Secretary of State relied on the grounds of appeal, the thrust of which is that the FTT did not consider whether the appellant had rebutted the presumption under s.72 of the 2002 Act and should have done so (notwithstanding the absence of a certificate) in accordance with Mugwagwa s.72 - applying statutory presumptions) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT 338 .

The FTT heard the appeal in the absence of the appellant. The unrepresented appellant told us that he did not receive notice of the hearing because the Secretary of State had his wrong address. The address should have been Flat 73 not Flat 83. We note that the FTT sent the notice of hearing to Flat 93. We are satisfied that the appellant did not receive notice of the hearing.

The judge erred because he did not properly apply Mugwagwa. The judge was required to consider the statutory presumption, and this is a matter that the judge rehearing the appeal must turn his or her mind to within the statutory framework set out in the 2002 Act. The judge may find assistance in the case of Mugwagwa and the case of Essa (Revocation of protection status appeals) [2018] UKUT 244 (IAC) .

We set aside the decision to allow the appeal. We remit this case to the FTT for a fresh hearing before a different judge. Both the Secretary of State and the appellant wished this case to be reheard by the FTT. We decided, having regard to paragraph 7 of the Practice Statement of the IAC of 25 September 2012, that this was appropriate.