67 claimed that the Principal Registrar of Persons (2nd respondent/Registrar) could not hand out new generation identity cards to the petitioners because their records indicated that their registration had been cancelled and that they were not citizens of Kenya. Key issues for determination The main issues were whether the courts could order for aggrieved parties to be registered as citizens without reviewing the decision that deregistered the aggrieved parties. Secondly the court had to determine whether the act of not informing the petitioners of the results of a report that deregistered them as citizens violated their rights to fair administrative action. Findings of the court • On whether the court could seize and hold the powers of the immigration authorities, the court held that it was the duty of the Principal Registrar of Persons (hereafter referred to as Registrar) to consider applications for registration of persons as citizens and issue them with identity documents and the court could not assume that role unless the decision of the Registrar contravened the Constitution and the law. On the petitioner’s right to fair administrative action, the court held that: • The act of not informing the applicants of the outcome of the investigations by the Task Force with respect to the status of applicants and their applications for the new generation identity cards, since the Task Force investigations of 1990 and the application for new identity cards in 2005 was in clear violation of the principle of fair administrative justice as entrenched in article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya which was a right available to every person including non-citizens. • Without the reasons for the rejection of their registration and handing out of identity cards, the applicants could not challenge in court Task Force Report in the material facts the decision of the registrar and or the findings of the The affecting the applicants must therefore be Task Force with respect to their citizenship status. The availed to the applicants and the court so that applicant would still be able to launch a judicial challenge the applicants could have an opportunity to of the decision of the Registrar and that of the Task Force challenge the findings of the Report. upon which the former’s was allegedly based. • Lastly, the court was not able to declare the applicants’ citizens of Kenya without determining the validity and accuracy of the Report of the Task Force. The Task Force Report in the material facts affecting the applicants must therefore be availed to the applicants and the court so that the applicants could have an opportunity to challenge the findings of the Report. • The Report by the Muslim for Human Rights published in the book Banditry and the Politics of Citizenship: The Case of Galjeel Somali of Tana River, Muhuri (1999), on Galjeel Somalis of Tana River with a population of 2400 as at the year 1999, of whom the applicants were said to be members, persuaded the court that the matter was serious and important enough to warrant the calling in of expert assistance of the specialized state organizations on human rights and equality to aid in the determination of the truth as to the applicants’ citizenship. The court invited the two human rights and CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST