The court stated that the applicant had applied to be a citizen. The onus lay on him to follow up on his application to confirm if the application had been allowed or not.
He was made to understand what charges he was facing and he pleaded guilty.
The court held that the fact that the correct sub section of the provision of the law that the applicant was charged under was not cited did not render the charge defective. The reasoning would not be evaluated because determination of the issues would constitute grounds of appeal. The same case applied to the submission of whether or not the dealing in miraa and loading them amounted to engaging in work without a permit.
Engaging in business without a work permit contrary to Section 53(1)(m) as read with Section 53(a) of the Kenyan Citizenship and Immigration Act; Being in possession of a waiting card for registration of a Kenyan National Identity card contrary to Section 54(1) as read with Section 54(2) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act
The applicant was charged with engaging in business without a work permit contrary to Section 53(1)(m) as read with Section 53(a) of the Kenyan Citizenship and Immigration Act (incurring a fine of Kshs. 200,000/= or default imprisonment for 18 months) and being in possession of a waiting card for registration of a Kenyan National ID contrary to Section 54(1) and (2) of the same Act (incurring a fine of Kshs. 500,000/= or default imprisonment for 24 months).
He filed for revision alleging an incurably defective charge sheet; failure to uphold Section 3(2) of the Refugee Act on prima facie refugee status; his arrest and prosecution was unconstitutional as Section 13 of the Kenya citizenship and Immigration Act allowed a person of the age of majority who had been a lawful resident in Kenya for a continuous period of seven years to apply for citizenship and mitigation wasn’t considered.
The sentence imposed was set aside and substituted with an order that the applicant had served sufficient sentence and was thereby forthwith set free. He would be escorted to the Immigration Department for purposes of transporting him to the refugee camp.
The applicant was a refugee thus the court tempered the revision of the sentence with mercy. He had served a sufficient sentence but he would live and stay in Kenya under the mandate expected of a refugee.
He was not arrested in connection to terrorism related offences hence the order that he be handed over to the APTU was unwarranted.