https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11079

Karani & another v Attorney General & another (Constitutional Petition E002 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11079 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11079 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nanyuki Constitutional Petition E002 of 2024 AK Ndung'u, J July 21, 2026 Between Dennis Ndege Karani 1st Petitioner Grace Kuvindya Nzivo 2nd Petitioner and The Attorney General 1st Respondent Director General of Immigration 2nd Respondent Judgment 1.The Petitioners’ case is set out in a petition dated 14/10/2024 and filed on 07/11/2024. The 1st Petitioner states that he was born in Laikipia on 2/08/2003 and that his mother was murdered on 8/02/2004 by her boyfriend and he was rescued by the police and later committed to Kids Alive Kenya Children’s Home. The 1st Petitioner further states that on 22/12/2006, upon application, Robert Gustin and Elizabeth Gustin were appointed as his Guardians and that he has lived with the said couple since then and continues to live with Elizabeth Ann Gustin after the demise of Robert Gustin. 2.According to the 1st Petitioner on 31/10/2007 he was issued with a Birth Certificate bearing the names Dennis Karani and that he desired to have three names hence on 26/04/2022, he swore a Deed poll and effected change of name to adopt the names Dennis Ndege Karani and he was issued with a Birth Certificate serial number 7746049 bearing the names Dennis Ndege Karani and he further had to surrender the Birth Certificate earlier issued to him before issuance of his current Certificate. 3.The 1st Petitioner states that upon attaining the age of majority, he applied and was issued with identity card number 42139214 and that on 23/05/2023, he made an application to be issued with a passport and he attached all the requisite documents and he was given an appointment to take his finger prints on 28/07/2023. 4.The 1st Petitioner contends that however upon presented himself, he was told that he had acquired his registration documents fraudulently and that his identity card and birth certificate were seized and he was issued with a bond Under Section 48 (2) and 49 (10) of the Citizenship and Immigration Act 2011 and he was also told to provide an original copy of the guardianship order issued by the Magistrates court. 5.The 1st Petitioner further contends that on presentation of that order, he was verbally informed that he needs a court order indicating that he was a foundling. He maintains that he is not a foundling as his mother was a Kenyan Citizen known to the area chief of Ndathi sub-location and the residents of that area. He is thus a citizen of Kenya by birth in accordance with the provisions of Article 14(1) of the Constitution. 6.The 1st Petitioner asserts that the 2nd Respondent has refused to issue him with a passport and continues to hold his Identity card and birth certificate and that his is required to report to the immigration offices periodically to renew his bond, this alongside the retention of his birth certificate and identity card has subjected him to psychological trauma. 7.On her part, the 2nd Petitioner states that was found abandoned at Nyeri Provincial General Hospital and she was committed to Kids Alive Kenya Children's Home by court on 2nd April 2004. Later on Robert Gustin and Elizabeth Ann Gustin were appointed her guardians. She stated that she has lived with the said couple since then and continues to live with Elizabeth Ann Gustin after the demise of Robert Gustin. 8.She further states that she was born on 31/10/2007 and was issued with a birth Certificate bearing the name Grace Nzivo and that her birth certificate had two names and she desired to have three names hence on 26/04/2022 she swore a Deed poll and effected change of name so as to adopt the names Grace Kuvindya Nzivo and she was issued with a Birth Certificate serial number 7746047 bearing the three names. 9.She maintains that upon attaining the age of majority, she applied and was issued with a national identity card number 42139250 and that on 23/05/2023 she made an application to be issued with a passport and attached all the requisite documents and she was given an appointment to take her fingerprints on 28/07/2023. 10.The 2nd Petitioner contends that however, upon presenting herself, she was told that she had acquired her registration documents fraudulently. Her identity card and birth certificate were seized and she was issued with a bond under Section 48 (2) and 49 (10) of the Citizenship and Immigration Act 2011 and she was also told to provide an original copy of the guardianship order issued by the Magistrates court. She further contends that on presentation of that order, she was verbally informed that she needs a court order indicating that she was a foundling. 11.According to the 2nd Petitioner, all her efforts to trace such an order have been in vain and that the only documents she has been able to trace is the order committing her to Kids Alive Kenya. 12.The 2nd Petitioner asserts that the 2nd Respondent has refused to issue the 2nd Petitioner with a passport and continues to hold her Identity card and birth certificate. Further, she states that the 2nd Respondent requires her to report to the immigration office periodically to renew the said bond. This has subjected the 2nd Petitioner to Psychological torture. 13.The Petitioners state that they are been discriminated against due to the circumstances of their birth which are way beyond their control. This has infringed on the Petitioners rights under Article 27(1) which provides for freedom from discrimination. 14.The Petitioners contend that by detaining their identity cards, birth certificates and refusing to issue them with passports, the 2nd Respondent has infringed on their right to freedom of movement. The Petitioners state they have been unable to access buildings where security guards require one to provide their identity card as well as move around freely. Further, the Petitioners state that the application for passports was with the intention to travel out of the country and that their movement has thus been hindered infringing on their right to movement. 15.The Petitioners assert that although the Officers of the 2nd Respondent verbally declined to issue the Petitioners with passports, they have never given them a formal explanation for such refusal in line with the provisions of Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 30 of the Citizenship and Immigration Act of 2011. 16.The Petitioners maintain that the 2nd Respondent's refusal to issue them with passports has infringed on their constitutional rights to wit; the Right to a passport under Article 12(1)(b) of the Constitution, the Right to freedom from discrimination Article 27 of the Constitution, the right to freedom of movement under Article 39 of the Constitution and the Right to a fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution. 17.The Petitioners state that as a consequence of the said contraventions of the Constitution by the 2nd Respondent they continue to suffer loss, psychological torture and prejudice. 18.The Petitioners contend that they have been reduced to reporting to the Immigrations Offices Nairobi periodically so as to extend their bond. This has not only subjected them to psychological torture but also forces them to incur expenses in travel from Nanyuki to Nairobi. 19.The Petitioners assert that the failure to issue them with Passports and failure to give a formal reason for the rejection or otherwise of their applications has left them stranded not knowing where to turn to. 20.The Petitioners claim that the confiscation of their national identity cards and birth certificates has greatly inconvenienced them as one needs an identity card to access some buildings as well carry out some transactions. 21.The Petitioners insist that the denial of passports has denied the Petitioners the right to travel out of the country as they had intended to. 22.The reliefs sought are as follows;1.A declaration that the 1st Petitioner by dint of Articles 14(1) of the Constitution is a bona fide and rightful Citizen of Kenya and his holding of a National Identity card is sufficient proof of his Kenyan Citizenship.2.A declaration that the 2nd Respondent is by dint of Article 14(4) of the Constitution presumed a citizen of Kenya by birth and her holding of a National Identity card is sufficient proof of her Kenyan Citizenship.3.A declaration that the Petitioners are entitled to all rights of a citizen of Kenya under Articles 12(1) (a) and (b), Article 27, Article 39 and Article 47 of the Constitution.4.An order compelling the 2nd Respondent and her/his officers to facilitate, and expedite the Petitioner's application for issuance of a Kenyan passports within 21 days of the order herein.5.An order compelling the 2nd Respondent to release the Petitioners identity cards and birth certificates immediately.6.An award of general damages for violation of the Petitioners Constitutional and Fundamental Rights and freedoms in prayer 3.7.Costs of the Petition. 23.The Petition is also supported by 1st Petitioner’s affidavit wherein he basically reiterates the averments in his petition already captured herein above. 24.In opposing the petition, the Respondents filed a Replying affidavit dated 26/05/2025 sworn by Ronnie Akedi. 25.The Respondents deponed that the Petitioners indeed applied for passports in the Immigration Offices Nanyuki branch and had an appointment to take fingerprints and confirm their application status in July, 2023. 26.The Respondents further deponed that the immigration officer who received the Petitioners' identification documents was suspicious of their validity due to their recent issuance on the same date of 9th November, 2022 which was less than one year before they applied for passports and in spite of their attaining the age of majority before the day of issuance for the said birth certificates. 27.The Respondents contend that the Petitioners also had glaring anomalies in their application forms such as the 1st Petitioners which lacked: a KRA pin, physical address, phone number, next of kin amongst others and this made the 2nd Respondent's officer suspect that the identification documents were in fact fraudulent. 28.The Respondents claim that the 2nd Respondent therefore decided to exercise its power under Section 48 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, Cap 172 and confiscated the Petitioner's identification documents pending investigations but released the Petitioners on bond with periodic check-ins to the 2nd Respondent's office mandated. 29.The Respondents assert that the investigations were eventually concluded and that it was found that the 1st Petitioner was indeed a Kenyan citizen with his mother being of Kenyan parentage but the 2nd Petitioner's status as a Kenyan citizen was yet to be confirmed and accordingly processed as per the legal avenue of presumption. 30.The Respondents argue that they affirm their commitment to returning the 1st Petitioner's identification documents but assert that in order for any person to be presumed as a citizen there must be a court order to that effect. 31.The Respondents also argue that they will be willing to also return the 2nd Petitioner's identification documents but only if she could present a court order confirming the presumption of her citizenship at birth. 32.The Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions. Both parties filed their respective submissions. 33.On her part, Counsel for the Petitioner begun by citing Article 14(1) and (4) of the Constitution in answering whether the Petitioners herein are Kenyan citizens. Counsel urged that by virtue of Article 14(1) of the Constitution, the 1st Petitioner is a Kenyan Citizen by birth because his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth. Counsel added that indeed, the 2nd Respondent's affidavit confirms this fact. 34.Counsel further submitted that the fact that the 2nd Petitioner was under the age of 8 years when she was found can be seen from her committal documents which clearly indicate that she was a baby at the time she was found abandoned. Counsel cited Article 14(4) of the Constitution of Kenya and submitted that the conditions therein were verified during her committal proceedings before court. Counsel urged that the 2nd Petitioner is thus a Kenyan citizen. Counsel further argued that both Petitioners are holders of valid national identity cards. Counsel contended that although 2nd Respondent alleged that the said identity cards had been obtained fraudulently, when they seized them, no evidence of fraud has been placed before this Honourable Court. Counsel relied on the case of Sirat vs. Abdulrahman and 2 others [2010] eKLR. 35.On the issue of infringement of the Petitioners’ right to a passport, Counsel submitted that the Petitioners are citizens of Kenya by birth and thus they are entitled by dint of Article 12(1)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya to be issued with passports. Counsel argued that the 2nd Respondent's refusal to issue the passports has infringed on their right in this respect. Counsel maintained that the law is settled that entitlement to a passport is not only a privilege but an entitlement of citizens. It is a substantive constitutional right which is inextricably intertwined with other constitutional rights of citizens. Counsel added that interference with this right, while itself a violation, would also inevitably interfere with other equally fundamental rights and freedoms that are hinged on it, for instance the right to freedom of movement. Counsel noted that a passport can only be denied as provided for by law and within the strict confines of Article 24 of the Constitution. She relied on case of E. W. A. & 2 Others vs Director of Immigration and Registration of Persons and Another [2018] eKLR. 36.In regard to the right to freedom from discrimination, Counsel cited Article 27(4) of the Constitution of Kenya and submitted that the 1st Petitioner is a son to a single mother who was murdered during his infancy. His mother's relatives are unknown to him. Counsel argued that the only document he has been able to get in regard to his mother is her identity card as well the letter from Ndathi police patrol base indicating circumstances of his mother's death. Counsel submitted that the 2nd Respondent discriminated against the 1st Petitioner by failing to take cognizance of his social circumstances. 37.Counsel further submitted that the 2nd Petitioner was abandoned as a baby at Provincial General Hospital in Nyeri, her parents are unknown. Counsel reiterated that she is thus a citizen by virtue of Article 14(4) of the Constitution. Counsel thus submitted that the 2nd Respondent discriminated against the 2nd Petitioner by failing to take cognizance of her social circumstances. Counsel relied on the case of Jacqueline Okeyo Manani & 5 others vs. Attorney General & Another [2018] eKLR. 38.On the right to freedom of movement, Counsel cited Article 39 of the Constitution of Kenya and submitted that one requires a passport to leave Kenya. The Petitioners application for passports were with the intention to travel. Denial to issue them with passports thus infringed on their right of movement. She relied on the case of Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission vs Deepak Chamanlal Kamani & 4 Others [2014] eKLR. 39.Counsel added that the 2nd Respondent's seizure of their identity cards infringed on their right to movement. Counsel noted that there are, buildings within the country which require you to show your identity card before you can gain access. Counsel argued that the Petitioners have not been able to access such buildings. Counsel submitted that they have lived in fear since their identity cards were seized over a year ago, restricting their movements to areas where they are well known. Counsel contended that Citizenship and Immigration Act does not empower Immigration Officers to seize, identity cards and Birth Certificates. 40.Counsel submitted that the right to fair administrative action, enshrined in Article 47 of the Kenyan Constitution and further detailed in the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, dictates that administrative actions must be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. Counsel maintained that this right ensures that individuals are treated justly when interacting with government bodies and other entities exercising public power. 41.Counsel added that the Petitioners herein made applications to be issued with passports on 10th July 2023 Over a year later, they have not been issued with passports. Counsel further submitted that their identity cards and birth certificates have been seized and they have been issued with bonds which they have been renewing periodically since 28th July 2023. Counsel argued that although the 2nd Respondent alleges that the Petitioners have never followed up on their application for passports, this is not clearly not true. Counsel noted that Petitioners have had to periodically present themselves to the 2nd Respondent's Offices for well over a year to renew their bonds. Counsel contended that even if the 2nd Respondent was carrying out investigations, we submit the period they have taken is too long. Further, Counsel contended that no communication to date has been made to the Petitioner's in regard to the result of those investigations. 42.Regarding the orders sought, Counsel submitted that the Petitioners are entitled to the orders sought by virtue of being Kenyan citizens. Counsel maintained that the Petitioners are entitled to be issued with passports without undue delay. Counsel argued that they are Citizens of Kenya and ought not be discriminated against due to circumstances of their birth. 43.On the issue of the release of their original identity card and birth certificates, Counsel submitted that replying affidavit of the Ronnie Akedi clearly indicates that their investigations have not found the Petitioner's to have commuted any offence under the Citizenship and Immigration Act, to warrant the continued seizure of the Petitioner's documents. Counsel urged that Petitioners are young adults who require to use the said documents in their day to day life especially their Identity cards. Counsel submitted that they are thus entitled to an order for release of the said documents. 44.In regard to the award of general damages, Counsel submitted that having made a case for breach of the Petitioner's Constitutional and Fundamental Rights, the Petitioners are entitled to an award of damages. She relied on the case of CMM (Suing as the Next of Friend of and on Behalf of CWM) & 6 others v Standard Group& 4 others [2023] KESC 68 (KLR), Lucy Wanjiku Mukaru (suing as the legal representative of Mukaru Ng'ang'a-Deceased) v Attorney General [2018] eKLR and the case of John Muruge Mbogo v Chief of Defence Forces & another [2018] eKLR. 45.Counsel thus urged that in this case, the torture meted out on the Petitioner's is psychological as opposed to physical. She submitted that an award of Kenya Shillings Five Hundred Thousand each would be adequate compensation to the Petitioners. 46.On the issue of costs, Counsel cited Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, to the effect that costs follow the event. She urged that costs be awarded to the Petitioners. 47.In rejoinder submissions, Counsel for the Respondents begun by citing Article of the Constitution on the limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms. Counsel urged that the Constitution envisages that at some points the citizens' rights and freedoms except for those provided in Article 25 could be limited. Counsel added that the Constitution further provides for the state's actions being free from bias particularly in Article 27(4). Counsel thus submitted that neither did the Respondents discriminate upon nor infringe on the Petitioner's rights as provided under Chapter 3 as well as Articles 29, 39 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 48.Counsel submitted that the Respondent have averred that they only confiscated the Petitioners' identification documents when suspicious that they were fraudulent and this was within the 2nd Respondent's powers and obligations as provided in Article 12(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Counsel added that the Act of Parliament envisaged in Article 12(2) above is the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, Cap 172 which provides the 2nd Respondent diverse functions and powers to ensure the state's security from illegal movements or trafficking of persons amongst other possible offences. Counsel cited Section 48 and 54 of the said Act and submitted that the 2nd Respondent therefore in pursuance of its statutory mandate and enforcing the provisions of Cap 172 above confiscated the Petitioners' documents and proceeded to conduct investigations to determine their validity as well as the Petitioners' citizenship status. 49.Counsel argued that the 2nd Respondent in carrying out its mandate can neither be said to violate the Petitioners' rights to equal treatment and protection of the law as provided in Article 27 nor to cause them torture of any form as envisaged in Article 29 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 50.Counsel maintained that the at all times the Petitioners' rights were considered which is why they were issued with bond pending the investigation's conclusion and findings with the office also proceeding to accord priority to this investigation in spite of the 2nd Respondent's heavy workload. Counsel cited Section 58 the Interpretation and General Provisions Act and submitted that in this regard, the Respondents also fulfilled the provisions of Article 47 which provides for lawful, procedurally fair, reasonable and expeditious administrative action. Counsel urged that the investigations conducted by the 2nd Respondent were lawful as well as reasonable and with consideration to the 2nd Respondent's heavy workload were also expeditiously concluded. 51.Counsel argued that the law provides that those who seek the court's intervention should first seek alternative dispute resolution methods and only approach the court as a forum of last resort. Counsel cited the case of Radheylal v Director Immigration & 3 others (Petition E293 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 6316 (KLR). Counsel argued that the Petitioners did not write any correspondence to the 2nd Respondent claiming violation of their rights neither did their advocate on record which would have enabled the 2nd Respondent to respond with the progress on the previously unconcluded investigations. 52.Counsel urged that the law provides that those who seek equity and recourse must also approach the courts with clean hands. That the 2nd Petitioner in particular should therefore have the requisite legal documents to prove her citizenship. She cited the case of Republic v Director of Immigration Services & another; Mohamud (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E154 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 9623(KLR). 53.Counsel further submitted that Section 9 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, Cap 172 provides for the process to be followed to confirm citizenship of foundlings as provided in Article 14 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Counsel argued that 2nd Petitioner must therefore comply with the provisions set out in section 9 of Cap 172 to formally and legally become a citizen of Kenya which is not merely dint of right as has been averred by the Petitioners. 54.Counsel maintained that the Respondents have not denied the Petitioners right to movement in any arbitrary or malicious manner and were merely carrying out their statutory obligations to ensure the Petitioners were truly citizens of Kenya since passports are only issued to Kenyan citizens as provided in Section 22 of Cap 172. Counsel thus urged the Court holds in favour of the Respondents and dismisses the Petition with costs in the Respondents' favour. 55.On the issue of damages, Counsel submitted that the Respondents have not violated the Petitioner's rights and were merely carrying out their statutory mandate hence the Petitioner cannot rightfully pray for damages due to alleged infringement of said rights. Counsel relied on the case of Peter Ndegwa Kiai t/a Pema Wines & Spirits vs Attorney General & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 243 of 2017) [2021] KECA 328 (KLR). 56.On the issue of costs, Counsel cited Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and also relied on the case of Republic vs Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 Others Ex-parte Alinoor Derow Abdullahi & Others (2017) eKLR and urged that costs be awarded in favour of the Respondents. 57.I have considered the Petition, the affidavit evidence and the rival submissions by the parties herein. The issues for determination crystallize to;a.Whether the Petitioners are Kenyan Citizens by birth.b.Whether the petitioners’ rights and Fundamental Freedoms were violated.c.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the orders sought. 58.Of pertinence is Article 14 of the Constitution which provides as follows: Citizenship by birth“ 14(1)A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen; (2)Clause (1) applies equally to a person born before the effective date, whether or not the person was born in Kenya, if either the mother or father of the person is or was a citizen;(3)Parliament may enact legislation limiting the effect of clauses (1) and (2) on the descendants of Kenyan citizens who are born outside Kenya;(4)A child found in Kenya who is or appears to be, less than eight years of age, and whose nationality and parents are not known, is presumed to be a citizen by birth;(5)A person who is a Kenyan citizen by birth and who has ceased to be a Kenyan citizen because the person acquired the citizenship of another county is entitled on application to regain Kenyan citizenship. 59.Article 14 is further operationalized and given force by Section 6 of the technical statute. Section 6 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act (Cap 172) provides as follows.“Citizenship by birthA citizen by birth will carry the same meaning as provided in Article 14 as read together with clause 30 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.” 60.And section 9 of the Kenyan Citizenship and Immigration Act 2011 provides –Citizenship by Presumption for foundlings 1.Any person who finds a child who is or appears to be less than eight years of age, and whose nationality and parents are not known shall present the child to the Government department dealing with matters relating to children and where there is no such department, present the child to the nearest Government department or agency. 2.Where a child is received by a Government department or agency that is not responsible for matters relating to children, the department or agency shall immediately report and present the child to the Government department responsible for matters relating to children. 3.The Government department responsible for matters relating to children shall undertake the necessary investigations including, subject to the rights of the child under any written law, the use of media to determine origin of the child. 4.If the Government department responsible for matters relating to children fails to determine the origin and identity of the child in question, it shall present the child found to the Children’s Courts and take out proceedings for the determination of the age, nationality, residence and the parentage of the child. 5.The court shall after determining the adequacy of the efforts undertaken by the Government department responsible for matters relating to children, issue an order directing that such a child be presumed to be a citizen by birth or any other order that it deems fit to grant. 6.Where the court makes an order that the child be presumed to be a citizen by birth, it may direct the Director to register the child in the register of children presumed citizen by birth. 7.Any person who brings into Kenya, conspires, assists or facilitates the abandoning of a child with the intention of conferring citizenship on the child commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding ten million shillings or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to both. 61.From the pleadings on record, it is clear that the 1st Petitioner is without a doubt is a Kenyan citizen pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Kenyan Constitution. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner was born in Kenya to a Kenyan mother and thus qualifies to be a Kenyan citizen by birth. 62.The above notwithstanding, the Respondents confirmed that the 1st Petitioner herein is indeed a Kenyan citizen with his mother being of Kenyan parentage. 63.As for the 2nd Petitioner, it is clear that currently she is an adult and thus well above the age of eight years. However, it evident that the 2nd Petitioner herein was abandoned at the Nyeri Provincial General Hospital as baby. She was later committed to Kids Alive Kenya by the Court on 2/04/2024 and that in the year 2006, both Robert and Elizabeth Gustin were appointed as her legal guardians. Looking at the committal documents on record, it is evident that the 2nd Petitioner herein was under age of 8 years when she was found, she was in fact a baby and thus qualified to be presumed to be a Kenyan citizen birth as provided under Article 14(4) of the Kenyan Constitution. 64.Having found so, the next question to be is answered is whether the Petitioners’ rights were violated by the Respondents. 65.From the Petitioners’ narration their issues with the 2nd Respondent begun when they approached the 2nd Respondent to be issued with passports. The petitioners being Kenyan citizens are like any other citizen entitled to the rights and privileges that came with being a citizen as guaranteed under Article 12(1)(b) of the Constitution, which entitles every citizen to a Kenyan passport and any document of registration or identification issued by the state to citizens. 66.This court is cognizant of the fact, that the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights including her said right under Article 12(1) (b) of the Constitution are not absolute but can be limited under Article 24 of the Constitution. However, this limitation should be reasonable and justifiable. 67.The reasons advanced by the 2nd Respondent for denying the Petitioners their passports are legally and factually unjustifiable when viewed against the Petitioners' history as former wards of the state. The record confirms that the Petitioners were committed to a children’s home via a Court Order and subsequently placed under legal guardianship. While the Respondents cite the "Clean Hands" doctrine, claiming that the 2nd Petitioner must provide documents to prove citizenship; this ignores the reality that she was a foundling as contemplated under Article 14(4) of the Constitution and Section 9(1) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act. Expecting a person who was processed through the state’s own child protection systems to produce documentation "not within her reach" creates a procedural impossibility. 68.The predicament faced by the Petitioners is not an isolated incident; rather, it highlights a systemic plight shared by numerous young adults and children who, having been abandoned or orphaned, navigate the complex machinery of the 2nd Respondent. 69.A central feature of the legal adoption process is the standard practice of renaming, which necessitates the issuance of new birth certificates. However, as demonstrated in this instance, the 2nd Respondent frequently views these legally amended documents with undue suspicion. While I am cognizant of the 2nd Respondent’s statutory obligations under Sections 48 and 54 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act to maintain the integrity of national travel documents, these duties do not exist in a vacuum. 70.Administrative mandates must be balanced against the constitutional rights of the individual. Where a party provides sufficient secondary documentation and proof of legal adoption to substantiate their citizenship, the 2nd Respondent’s continued refusal constitutes an unreasonable hurdle. This skepticism, when applied to bona fide applicants, results in a discriminatory infringement on the right to a passport—a right that should be afforded to every Kenyan citizen without the burden of 'institutional' prejudice against their personal history. 71.Viewing the Petitioner’s application with suspicion, the 2nd Respondent withheld their national identity cards and birth certificates. The Petitioners contend that this act constitutes a direct violation of their right to freedom of movement under Article 39 of the Constitution. Specifically, the Petitioners assert that the seizure of these documents has effectively curtailed their mobility, as they are unable to access essential public and private premises where the presentation of an identity card is a mandatory requirement for entry. 72.Under Kenyan law, an ID card is the primary document through which a citizen exercises their fundamental rights. Thus, withholding the Petitioners ID cards in this instance is an outright infringement of their constitutional right to movement. The 2nd Respondent has not tendered any reasons why it has continued to withhold the 1st Petitioner’s identity card and birth certificate even after concluding investigations and finding out that indeed he is a Kenyan citizen. Since ID cards are required to access public buildings, airports, and many transport hubs, withholding the document constitutes a practical and unlawful restriction on a person's mobility. This is also a violation of the Petitioners rights human dignity as envisaged under Article 28 of the Constitution. In the case of Gulleid v Registrar of Persons & Another [2021] KEHC 110 (KLR), the court in a nutshell emphasized that denying or withholding identification documents strips a person of their legal persona, which is an affront to their dignity. 73.Consequently, I find that the Respondents have directly infringed upon the Petitioner’s fundamental right to be issued with a passport and other relevant documents of identity, as strictly protected under Article 12(1)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya. This failure by the Respondents not only violates the letter of the Constitution but also undermines the Petitioner’s right to freedom of movement and the inherent dignity afforded to every Kenyan citizen. 74.It is the Petitioners’ further contention that the 2nd Respondent has breached the right to Fair Administrative Action as enshrined under Article 47 of the Constitution, as read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Fair Administrative Action Act (FAAA). The Petitioners aver that the 2nd Respondent’s conduct of prolonging the alleged investigations indefinitely is both unreasonable and procedurally unfair. 75.Under the FAAA, administrative action must be expeditious and efficient. By failing to conclude the investigations within a reasonable timeframe and concurrently failing to communicate the findings or provide written reasons for the continued withholding of the Petitioners' documents, the 2nd Respondent has acted in a manner that is arbitrary and oppressive. 76.In terms of appropriate reliefs, Article 23 (3) of the Constitution empowers this Court to grant appropriate reliefs in any proceeding seeking to enforce fundamental rights and freedoms, such as this one. The South African Constitutional Court in Minister of Health & others v Treatment Action Campaign & others (2002) 5 LRC 216 at page 249 held as follows:“...appropriate relief will in essence be relief that is required to protect and enforce the Constitution. Depending on the circumstances of each particular case, the relief may be a declaration of rights, an interdict, a mandamus, or such other relief as may be required to ensure that the rights enshrined in the Constitution are protected and enforced. If it is necessary to do so, the court may even have to fashion new remedies to secure the protection and enforcement of these all important rights...the courts have a particular responsibility in this regard and are obliged to "forge new tools" and shape innovative remedies, if need be to achieve this goal." 77.This court has considered the petitioner's case and the applicable law, and it has concluded that the petitioner's rights were violated, and they is entitled to damages. In terms of the quantum of damages, awarding damages entails the exercise of judicial discretion, which should be exercised judicially, which means that it should be based on reason and principle rather than caprice or personal opinion. See Mbogo & Another v Shah [1968] EA 93. 78.Adjudicating compensation for non-pecuniary and non-physical loss inherently tests the limits of the judicial process. The court is tasked with the complex duty of rendering an objectively justifiable award grounded in evidence, logical reasoning, and established precedent, notwithstanding the intangible nature of the injury. As noted in Jamlik Muchangi Miano v Attorney General [2017] eKLR, the challenge lies in translating subjective suffering into a structured legal remedy. 79.I find that an award of Kshs. 500,000/= to each of the Petitioners.would be reasonable in the circumstances considering violation of both the Petitioners’ right to be issued with passports, to human dignity, to movement and to a fair administrative action. Accordingly, I enter judgement in favour of the Petitioners and make the following orders;a.A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 1st Petitioner, Dennis Ndege Karani, is a citizen of Kenya by birth pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Constitution, and that his National Identity Card constitutes prima facie proof of his Kenyan citizenship.b.A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 2nd Petitioner, Grace Kuvindya Nzivo, having been found abandoned in Kenya while under the age of eight years and her nationality and parents being unknown, is presumed to be a citizen of Kenya by birth pursuant to Article 14(4) of the Constitution, and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a Kenyan citizen.c.A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Respondents violated the Petitioners' constitutional rights under Articles 12(1)(b), 28, 39 and 47 of the Constitution by unlawfully withholding their birth certificates and national identity cards, unreasonably delaying the processing of their passport applications, and failing to accord them fair administrative action.d.An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the Director General of Immigration and the Directorate of Immigration Services to forthwith release to the Petitioners their respective National Identity Cards and Birth Certificates, if the same have not already been released, and in any event within seven (7) days from the date of this Judgment.e.An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the Director General of Immigration and the Directorate of Immigration Services to process and issue Kenyan passports to both Petitioners, subject only to the ordinary administrative requirements applicable to all Kenyan citizens and without imposing any additional or discriminatory conditions, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Judgment.f.The Petitioners are each awarded general damages of Kenya Shillings Five Hundred Thousand (Kshs. 500,000/=) for the violation of their constitutional rights, making a total award of Kenya Shillings One Million (Kshs. 1,000,000/=).g.The awards of damages shall attract interest at court rates from the date of this Judgment until payment in full.h.The Petitioners shall have the costs of the Petition, together with interest thereon at court rates from the date of taxation or agreement until payment in full.It is so ordered. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY 2026A.K. NDUNG’UJUDGE