63 • • • • its officers was to quickly, reasonably and procedurally consider the application. Ultimately, a decision whether or not to issue the petitioner with an identification document or card had to be made and that was bound to affect the petitioner either way. The law required the decision- maker to give written reasons for any action or decision taken (article 47(2) of the Constitution) or give a statement of reasons for any decision reached (section 4(3) (d) of the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015). Such written reasons could be given voluntarily or upon request. Section 8 of the Registration of Persons Act stated that a registration officer could require any person who had given any information to furnish such documentary or other evidence of the truth of the information given. The section also required the 2nd respondent’s officers to appoint a committee or a person to assist in the authentication of information furnished by an applicant. The 2nd respondent’s officers did not invoke those provisions. The respondents acted contrary to the provisions and spirit of article 47(2) of the Constitution as to justice, fairness and reasonableness. The respondents’ officers apparently abdicated their statutory duty to receive, consider and determine in an expeditious, fair, The process was clearly outlined. In lawful and reasonable manner an application made by the the case of registration of persons and issuance of identification cards petitioner for a national identification document. In that a principal registrar appointed respect, the petitioners right to fair administrative action under section 4 of the Registration was violated. of Persons Act was in charge. 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 over-stretch and abuse the spirit as to freedom of movement. It would also be unreasonable. The relevant statutes already provided for sufficient details and information to be provided. The anticipation was that an application for an identification document to be issued by the State under article 12 of the Constitution could be made anywhere within the Republic of Kenya. The inconvenience of directing and shepherding applicants to apply at particular places was baseless. A person should and must be able to apply for an identification card at any registration station within the Republic of Kenya and where the Principal Registrar determined otherwise written reasons for such a decision were to be availed. The petitioner on a preponderance of fact had established that he applied for registration of an identification document. Even if the petitioner was not qualified to be issued with one, the respondents’ officers were required to follow the due process consistent with articles 12, 27 and 47(1) of the Constitution. The action of the respondents’ officers of verbally directing the petitioner to go and apply elsewhere was unreasonable and amounted to a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights and freedoms. The 2nd respondent had statutory power to consider applications for registration of Kenyan citizen and issuance of identification documents. The court had no such CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST