The court held that The Refugee Act, 2006 and the Refugee (Reception, Registration and Adjudication) Regulations, 2009 (Regulations) contemplated that refugees could be accommodated in regulated refugee camps. The Regulations governed the movement of refugees outside the camps. The petitioners had not established a basis for persecution if they returned to the refugee camps. Other than exhibiting business permits issued by the Nairobi City County, there was nothing to show that their business would be disrupted if they were required to renew their registration at designated points. Where an applicant had business interests, that was legitimate ground upon which the Commissioner could issue a movement permit. Under s 16(2) of the Refugee Act, 2006, refugees had to seek the necessary permits under the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 if they wished to apply for employment.
Refugee law; refugee rights; refugee camps; residence
The petitioners’ alleged that the directive issued by the 1st respondent designating areas specified in the schedule as Refugee Camps and directing all refugees residing outside the designated refugee camps of Kakuma and Dadaab directed to return to their respective camps was inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of Kenya. 2010, the Refugee Act, 2006 and international law as it amounted to taking away the accrued or acquired rights by the petitioners without following the due process and therefore was discriminatory in nature.
The court held that the petitioners did not demonstrate by way of affidavit evidence how the Directive affected their individual circumstances to the extent that their fundamental rights and freedoms were violated.
The Refugee Act, 2006 and the Refugee (Reception, Registration and Adjudication) Regulations, 2009 (Regulations) contemplated that refugees could be accommodated in regulated refugee camps. The Regulations governed the movement of refugees outside the camps.