62 administrative action when he applied for his national identification card; whether it was lawful to require a person that applied for an identity card to go to a particular region to have it processed; whether a person’s nationality and religion of a person mattered in the issuance of national identification cards and whether the petitioner was a citizen of Kenya entitled to be registered and issued with a national identification card. Summary of judgment • The court held that every citizen was entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits of citizenship as provided by the Constitution. The citizen was also entitled to a Kenyan passport and a document of registration or identification issued by the State. • The Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act as well as the Registration of Persons Act, respectively, provided detailed mechanisms and procedures for the issuance of the Kenyan passport and national identification card by the State. The manner of application was outlined and had to be formal. The forms were prescribed and the information to be availed was also itemized in the case of both statutes. The process was clearly outlined. In the case of registration of persons and issuance of identification cards a principal registrar appointed under section 4 of the Registration of Persons Act was in charge. • On the other hand, in the case of issuance of passports under the Kenyan Citizenship and Immigration Act, a Director- General appointed under the Kenya Citizens and Foreign Nationals Management Service Act was in charge. Both the Principal Registrar and the Director General were appointees of the 2nd respondent to whom they were answerable and accountable. Both had directors, immigration officers and registrars, as the case could be, deputizing them. • The offices of the Director- General as well as the Registrars were independent under law. It was for any applicant to avail all the necessary information as prescribed and required and for the Director- General or his officers processing the application for a passport or citizenship on the other hand or the Registrar processing an application for identification document, to consider and decide independently whether the application had merit. Indeed, the statutes even provided for instances when the officer could request for additional information to enable him process the application better. • In exercise of such powers however and in making the decision or determination, the Director-General as well as the Principal Registrar were to afford any applicant fair administrative action as guaranteed by article 47 of the Constitution and by the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. • The court was to restrain itself from interfering with the duties that had been expressly provided by statute to specific authorities but only to the extent that the authorities met the requirements of fair administrative action had not been observed. • The 2nd respondent’s duty; acting through the Principal Registrar of Persons, and CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST