3 for Kenyan Citizenship on February 7, 2013 but since then, the office of the Director General, Kenya Citizens and Foreign Nationals Management Service (the respondent) had not communicated its decision on that application but in verbal communication, he was informed that the application could take upwards of five years to be determined. The reason for such a delay was never given to him and yet he truly believed that he was entitled to Kenyan citizenship. Feeling unfairly treated, the petitioner, filed the instant petition. The respondents’ submissions The respondent claimed that while it was true that the petitioner was born in Kenya, at that time, his parents were still British Nationals and his father was only registered as a Kenyan on August 21, 1987, three years after the applicant had been born. They also claimed that in that regard, citizenship in Kenya was acquired either by birth or by registration. They claimed that the National Identity Card(ID) held by the petitioner was irregularly given and was void. Furthermore, they claimed that the ID card ought to be cancelled and deactivated. Lastly the respondents claimed that the process of grant of citizenship was detailed and included background checks by bodies such as the National Intelligence Service and that there were no time frames set by the law for such applications to be processed. Key issues for determination The major issue to be determined was whether the act of applying for citizenship, was an admission that one was not a citizen of Kenya. Lastly, the court had to determine whether a delay of one and a half years in determining an application for one’s citizenship status was unreasonable delay and a violation of the right to fair administrative action. Summary of judgment • The court held that by applying for citizenship, the petitioner was admitting that he was not a citizen of Kenya although his father was a citizen. • The court declined to determine whether the petitioner had a legal right to a Kenyan citizenship because the Kenyan Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2013 had detailed procedures on how that matter should be addressed. Since Article 47 of the Constitution provided for fair the immigration authorities were the lawful entity granted administrative action that was “expeditious, the authority to determine who could become a citizen of efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair” Kenya, until it made that decision, the courts should not interfere with that authority. • On whether the petitioner’s rights were violated, the court held that a delay of one and a half years in processing an application for citizenship amounted to an excessive delay. The delay in processing such an application denied the applicant from the enjoyment of certain rights given to citizens. For the immigration authorities to state that since there was no time frame for considering the application no amount of delay can be termed as excessive was irrational. Article 47 of the Constitution provided for fair CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST