72 powers of the Director of Immigration and other relevant authorities and grant citizenship to an applicant before the court; whether the reason for not processing an application because of a freeze of the process and where such application had taken 3 years without being processed was a violation of the right to fair administrative action. The court also had to determine whether the procedure in which the applicant was declared a prohibited immigrant was legal. Summary of judgment On whether a court of law could take hold the powers of the Director of Immigration and other relevant authorities and give citizenship to an applicant before the court, the court held that: • The court could not intervene and declare that the applicant was entitled to Kenyan citizenship because his spouse was a Kenyan. Where there was clear procedure for the resolving of any particular injustice prescribed by the The court also had to determine whether the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure procedure in which the applicant was declared should be strictly followed. Making an application a prohibited immigrant was legal. presupposed that the application would be considered on its merits and a decision made one way or the other. If the decision was grossly unfair and if the decision was not equitable, then the same could be challenged either by way of judicial review. • The court could not and had no authority to unlawfully exercise the statutory authority of other agencies and appear to make decisions on their behalf, however merited the case of an applicant may be. Until the petitioner’s application was considered and a decision made one way or the other, it would be premature for the court to get into the issue and either declares that he was entitled to citizenship or that he was not so entitled. On whether the reason for not processing an application because of a freeze of the process and where such application had taken 3 years without being processed was a violation of the right to fair administrative action; and the legality of the order declaring the petitioner a prohibited immigrant, the court held that: • Applications for citizenship are serious constitutional matters under article 15 of the Constitution as well as relevant parts of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act (the Act). Section 33 of the Act had elaborate grounds for declaring a person to be a prohibited immigrant and section 33(5) specifically provided that the entry and residence of a prohibited immigrant in Kenya was unlawful. It had also not been shown that there were reasons under section 33(6) why the petitioner was allowed into Kenya and on what conditions he was so allowed and there were also no reasons to presuppose that section 34 of the Act applied to him. • An unreasonable delay in processing applications for registration was an insult to the right to fair administrative action under article 47 of the Constitution. A delay of 3 years was unreasonable. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST