70 should have indicated how the petitioners were heard and any documentation that was considered by the committee. The manner in which the committee carried out the screening process was not in line with article 47 of the Constitution. • The committee did not state the exact facts that were misrepresented and whether all the applicants misrepresented the same facts. Because of that failure the petitioners were not able to individually challenge the decision. The committee should have given each applicant reasons for denying their individual application. • The court stated that the Principal Registrar of Persons (2nd respondent/Registrar) under the Registration of Persons Act, Cap 107 was mandated with the issuance of national identity cards and therefore the court had no authority to declare the petitioners’ citizens of Kenya nor could it compel the 2nd respondent to issue them with identity cards. The actions of the Principal Registrar of Persons were interfering with the petitioners’ right under article 47 of the Constitution. The Principal Registrar of Persons was ordered to receive fresh applications from the petitioners for ID cards, and the said applications were to be considered afresh by the Minister for Immigration and the Principal Registrar of Persons in accordance with the principles of the law. The court also ordered that the respondents violated the petitioners’ rights under article 47 of the Constitution. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST