61 E. Case Law on Identification Documents 20. Requirements for applicants to go to particular places designated by the Principal Registrar to register for a National ID was against the spirit of the Constitution. Mohamed Mire v Attorney General & another Petition No 232 of 2015 High Court of Kenya at Nairobi JL Onguto J February 29, 2016 The spirit of the Constitution was that a person should be able to reside and remain anywhere in Kenya, unless proven or shown otherwise. To consider and insist that an applicant must go for registration at particular places to be designated by the Principal Registrar would be to overstretch and abuse the spirit as to freedom of movement. Summary of facts The petitioner’s submissions. The petitioner, a Kenyan of Somali descent was born in Nairobi in 1980 and schooled in Nairobi. The petitioner’s parents were both deceased. He applied for his identification card in Nairobi but the respondents after a brief vetting allegedly directed that he applied for his identification card in the North Eastern part of Kenya. His request to be issued with an identification card was rejected but no reason was advanced. In the petition, the petitioner sought various declaratory orders as well as costs of the petition. In particular, the petitioner sought an order that the petitioner had been discriminated against contrary to article 27 of the Constitution. The petitioner also sought for the court to declare that his right to fair administrative action under article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 had been abused. Finally, the petitioner sought to be registered as a citizen and be duly provided with both an identification card as well as a passport. The respondent’s submissions The respondents’ stated that if the application was made it was denied for lack of sufficient information. The respondents also stated the application for identification card ought to be made at the petitioners place of domicile or at his place of permanent residence. Key issues for determination The main issues that the court was to determine was whether the respondents or the respondents’ officers had not observed and accorded the petitioner the right to fair CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST