When Muja Wamariya Dative left Rwanda in 2011 fleeing what she described as ethnic persecution, she hoped Kenya would offer her family safety and a chance to rebuild their lives.
She joined her husband at Kakuma Refugee Camp, where he had settled earlier, but the search for security turned into another painful chapter. Her husband was murdered in 2016 and her son in 2023, according to court documents.
Ms Dative told the High Court that the killings followed repeated threats and reports to the police that she said were never acted upon. She accused the authorities of failing to investigate the deaths, protect her family and address the security risks she faced.
As she struggled with these losses, her application for refugee status remained unresolved, leaving her with an asylum seeker pass and proof of registration instead of the documentation she sought.
The consequences, she told the court, went beyond paperwork. She said the lack of proper identification documents had made it difficult to work, register a mobile phone number, own property or relocate.
More than 13 years after arriving in Kenya, her search for answers has resulted in a court order requiring refugee authorities to decide her application within 90 days.
Ms Dative filed a petition against the Commissioner for Refugee Affairs, the Department of Refugee Services, the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General and the Refugee Consortium of Kenya, accusing them of violating her constitutional rights through prolonged delays in processing her refugee status and failure to address her security concerns.
In a judgment delivered on October 8, 2026, High Court judge Patricia Nyaundi found that the delay in determining Ms Dative’s status was unjustifiable and violated her right to fair administrative action.
“The delay of more than 13 years in determining the Petitioner’s status is inexcusable,” the judge said.
The court ordered the Commissioner for Refugee Affairs and the Department of Refugee Services to determine her application within 90 days. The two agencies were also directed to pay the costs of the petition.
The matter will return to court on February 9, 2027, to confirm whether the orders have been implemented.
The government did not dispute that Ms Dative entered Kenya in 2011 and that her refugee status application had remained pending since she received an asylum seeker pass.
However, the Commissioner for Refugee Affairs argued that the application had become inactive after Ms Dative left Kakuma Refugee Camp without authorisation.
The authorities said she had failed to notify them of the change of residence, as required by the Refugees Act. They maintained that the application could only be processed after she returned to the camp.
They also argued that she was not entitled to a refugee identity card because her status had not been approved.
But the judge found the explanation inadequate, particularly given the security concerns raised by Ms Dative.
The court noted that the authorities had focused on her departure from the camp without adequately addressing her fears or offering assurances about her safety.
It rejected the position that her application could remain inactive indefinitely because she had left the camp.
“The days of executive indifference are behind us,” the judge said, emphasising the constitutional requirement that government decisions be made promptly, reasonably and fairly.
The judgment highlighted the tension between administrative requirements imposed on asylum seekers and the obligation of public agencies to deal with their applications within the law.
She argued that the lack of documentation had restricted her ability to build a stable life and provide for her family.
The court agreed that the prolonged uncertainty had affected her dignity and the quality of life available to her and her children.
Article 47 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. It also requires written reasons where an administrative decision adversely affects a person's rights or fundamental freedoms.
The judge further pointed to Section 12(9) of the Refugees Act, which requires refugee status applications to be determined within 90 days, subject to an extension for reasonable cause.
The court found that the law did not contemplate leaving an asylum seeker's application inactive for years.
Although Ms Dative raised concerns about the failure to protect her family and investigate the killings, the judge said she had not established that the respondents were responsible for the assault she suffered.
The petition against the Refugee Consortium of Kenya was also dismissed because she had not demonstrated how the organisation violated her rights.
The case against the remaining respondents succeeded on the question of the prolonged delay in determining her refugee status.
The judgment does not automatically grant Ms Dative refugee status but instead requires the authorities to make a decision on her application within the prescribed period.
The next court mention on February 9, 2027, will provide an opportunity to establish whether the government agencies have complied with the order.
