5 The task force received documentary evidence in accordance with Gazette Notice No. 5320 and gave special verification certificates to persons it considered genuine Kenyan Somalis. The said Task Force submitted to the Registrar a list of persons affected and whose registration records were indicated as cancelled. The petitioners were among those persons whose registration records were indicated as cancelled. As the petitioners were troubled by the Gazette Notice No. 5320 and the manner in which it was implemented, they filed an application to the High Court seeking relief under section 84 of the former Constitution on the ground that the notice was unfair in so far as it targeted Kenyans of Somali origin. The petitioners’ claim was that they were Kenyan citizens and holders of the old generation identity cards and Kenyan passports but had been denied new generation identity cards thereby affecting their rights, privileges and benefits of citizenship. The application Nairobi HC Misc. Application No. 774 of 2004 was heard and dismissed. The court in separate judgments concluded that the Gazette Notice No. 5320 was neither illegal nor unconstitutional in the circumstances. The result of the judgment was that the vetting process was upheld but the petitioners’ right to obtain new generation identity cards was not dealt with. The petitioners, who felt that they were unfairly treated, carefully waited for the passage of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and filed this petition in The Registrar of Persons had to act in accordance which they claimed that they were Kenyan citizens and holders with the law bearing in mind the provisions of of the old generation identity cards and Kenyan passports the Constitution particularly the fundamental rights and freedoms of the petitioners which but had been denied new generation identity cards thereby entitled the petitioners to fair administrative affecting their rights, privileges and benefits of citizenship. action. They claimed that the continued denial of their identity cards was a violation of article 12 and 14 of the Constitution which protected their citizenship rights. The respondents’ submissions In response, the respondents objected to the proceedings. They claimed the legality of the task force had been determined in Nairobi HC Misc. Application No. 774 of 2004 and that this case was res judicata (meaning the court should not deliberate over something it had heard before, especially when it arises from the same set of facts and the same parties). The petitioners counter argued that the judgments had only declared that the vetting exercise was constitutional and did not violate the rights of the petitioners. Consequently, this suit was not res-judicata (a matter decided in finality by a judge) as the previous suits dealt only with legality of the process and there was no finding made on the status of the petitioners. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST