34 prevented the applicant from the enjoyment of certain rights conferred upon citizens. The applicant had fulfilled the requirement under article 15 of the Constitution that provided that a person who had been married to a citizen for a period of at least seven years was entitled on application to be registered as a citizen. The applicant was eligible to apply to be registered as a citizen of Kenya. • On whether an applicant married to a Kenyan for seven years was guaranteed to be registered as a Kenyan citizen on application, the court held that an application for citizenship by a person married for seven years by a Kenya citizen was to be made in a prescribed manner as indicated under section 11 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act. The law did not state that such a person on application was to be registered as a citizen. Section 11 provided circumstances under which such a person may not be registered as a citizen. The registration of a person as a citizen by virtue of being married to a Kenyan citizen was not absolute but was subject to the conditions stipulated under section 11. It was not contended that there existed any bar under section 11 which would prohibit the applicant from being registered as a Kenyan citizen. To the contrary, the respondents approved the applicant’s application. • On the time for processing citizenship applications, the court held that while there was no specific timeline within which the application for citizenship should have been considered, article 259(8) of the Constitution provided that if a particular time was not prescribed by the Constitution for performing a required act, the act would be done without unreasonable delay, and Applications for citizenship as often as occasion arose. A period of more than 4 years ought to be processed in a timely manner, and in this case, a delay in processing an application for citizenship without delay of 4 years was considered informing the applicant at what stage such application had to be a very long time. reached was unreasonable and contrary to section 6(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act that provided that failure by an administrator to furnish an applicant with the reason for the administrative action/decision was to be presumed to have been taken without good reason. In the ordinary way and particularly in cases, which affect life, liberty or property, the authority concerned should give reasons and if it gives none the court could infer that the authority had no good reasons since the authority must act in good faith. The respondents were bound to provide the applicant with the reasons for making a decision either way and their failure to do so could only be interpreted to mean that they had no reasons for not registering the applicant as a citizen. The application for the applicant to be reinstated as a citizen and challenging the delay in responding to the applicant’s citizenship application was allowed. To this end the court issued declarations that the applicant was entitled to be registered as a citizen of Kenya. A mandatory order compelling the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Co—ordination of National Government and the Director General, Kenya Citizens and Foreign Nationals Management Services was issued commanding them to issue to the applicant the certificate of Kenya Citizenship and all relevant and necessary documents for registration of the applicant as a Kenyan Citizen in respect of the applicant’s application. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST