65 The respondents’ submissions The respondents claimed that they relied on an administrative system and procedure for addressing the problem of citizens registering as refugees. They claimed that they had not refused to issue an identity card to the applicant but that the process of determining the applicant’s application had not been fully concluded. Key issues for determination The main issue for the court to determine was whether immigration authorities could change the citizenship status of an individual from refugee to citizen on grounds that the person had mistakenly registered as a refugee. The court’s findings • The court held that persons registered as refugees were so registered after the process of refugee status determination was completed and the status of refugee was only granted to foreign nationals who sought asylum in Kenya and had fulfilled the conditions set out in the Refugees Act. • All Kenyan citizens were entitled, by law, to the rights, privileges and benefits of citizenship. One of these rights was to be issued with a Kenyan passport and any documents of registration or identification issued by the State to citizens. A passport or other document might be denied, suspended or taken away only in accordance with an Act of Parliament that satisfied the criteria mentioned in Article 24 of the Constitution. • The Government of Kenya was under a duty to register They claimed that they had not all its citizens and to issue them with documents of refused to issue an identity card to registration or identification. This was a statutory duty the applicant but that the process firmly anchored in the Constitution and in the Registration of determining the applicant’s application had not been fully of Persons Act which was an Act of Parliament. However, concluded. while there was a statutory duty in existence, it was only applicable to Kenyan citizens. • The court was not the right forum to determine whether the applicant was a Kenyan citizen. The duty of the court was to determine if mandamus should issue commanding the respondents to deregister the applicant as a refugee, register him as a citizen and issue him with an identity card. • The discretion to register and issue applicants with identity cards was left with the respondents. They received applications, screened applicants and ascertained that the set criteria for issuing identity cards were met. This court could not purport to tell the respondents how to exercise that discretion. • The court could not compel or command the respondents to deregister applicant as a refugee and to issue him with the identity card because the applicant failed to demonstrate that he deserved those orders. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST