36 and approve the applicant’s application for citizenship. The circumstances of the case were such that the 2nd respondent had taken over 4 years to consider the applicant’s application. That clearly offended More than 4 years delay in the applicant’s right to fair administrative action under processing an application for article 47(1) of the Constitution for lack of expeditious, citizenship without informing efficient, lawful reasonable and procedurally fair process. the applicant at what stage More than 4 years delay in processing an application for such application had reached was clearly unreasonable. citizenship without informing the applicant at what stage such application had reached was clearly unreasonable. • On the powers of the court in relation to the powers of the Department of Immigration, the court held that the mandate to register citizenship lay with the 2nd respondent, the court could not properly direct that the applicant be registered as a citizen as that would be taking over the power of the Immigration Authority. The court could, however, properly direct that the application for citizenship be considered within a reasonable time consistent with the right to Fair Administrative Action under article 47(1) of the Constitution. The Director, Department of Immigration Services; ordered to consider the applicant’s application for citizenship within 30 days. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST