Kituo Cha Sheria welcomes landmark ruling affirming the rule of law and the dignity of refugees and asylum seekers in Kenya.
The High Court in Nairobi has delivered a landmark judgment protecting the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Kenya, declaring unlawful a government directive that required them to surrender passports issued by their countries of origin or risk losing their refugee status and facing expulsion.
In its judgment delivered on 28 September 2026, the High Court at Milimani, presided over by Justice Gregory Mutai, ruled that the notices issued by the Department of Refugee Services on 30 September and 24 October 2024 were issued without legal authority and were therefore null and void.
The case, Refugee Legal Networks and Semhar Weldemicahel Haile v State Law Office and Others (HCCHRPET/E596/2024), was filed by Refugee Legal Networks to challenge a directive requiring all refugees and asylum seekers in Kenya to surrender their national passports within 30 days. The notices warned that failure to comply could result in the cancellation of refugee status and subsequent expulsion from Kenya.
The petitioners argued that the directive violated constitutional protections, including the right to human dignity, freedom of movement and fair administrative action. They further maintained that the Refugees Act, 2021, and the Refugees (General) Regulations, 2024, did not empower the Commissioner for Refugee Affairs to compel the surrender of national passports.
Kituo Cha Sheria participated in the proceedings as amicus curiae, or friend of the court, contributing to the broader consideration of the legal and human rights implications of the contested directive alongside other interested parties, including the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, Katiba Institute and The Legal Caravan.
In its determination, the Court found that the Commissioner lacked the legal authority to impose a blanket requirement for passport surrender or threaten the cancellation of refugee status and expulsion for non-compliance. It emphasised that public authorities must exercise their powers within the law and cannot create new obligations without proper legal authority.
The Court also found that the directive violated the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and threatened the rights to human dignity and freedom of movement under Articles 28 and 39. It further held that the blanket directive was unreasonable because it failed to distinguish between individual circumstances and was introduced without meaningful public participation or adequate procedural safeguards.
Importantly, the Court clarified that neither the Refugees Act nor the Refugees (General) Regulations requires refugees or asylum seekers to surrender their national passports as a condition for obtaining a Conventional Travel Document.
Consequently, the Court quashed the two notices and prohibited the relevant government authorities from collecting, confiscating or retaining original national passports under the unlawful directive. It further ordered the Department of Refugee Services to return passports collected under the notices within 30 days of the judgment and to file an affidavit of compliance within 45 days.
The judgment does not prevent the government from addressing legitimate concerns relating to refugee documentation, national security or possible misuse of passports. However, any action must comply with the law, follow due process and respect the rights of the individuals concerned.
The ruling reinforces the importance of constitutional safeguards, accountable public administration and access to justice in protecting the rights of marginalised communities. It affirms that refugee protection must be administered within the rule of law, ensuring that legitimate policy concerns do not become grounds for arbitrary action against people seeking safety and protection.
Click to read the full judgement
By Rony Alal