Man to have his ID replaced 30 years after it got lost

The High Court in Mombasa has ordered the registrar of persons to replace identity card belonging to Abdul Mohammed Gulleid that was lost 30 years ago.

Judge Eric Kennedy Ogola, in a judgment delivered on Tuesday, declared that Gulleid is a Kenyan citizen and was entitled to all the rights and privileges provided for under Chapter Three of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

The judge said the registrar of persons had violated the Constitution by failing to issue Gulleid with a duplicate of his lost identity card.

Gulleid, as per the suit he filed in court, lost his identity card in 1989.

He said the identification card was replaced within three days after his father paid a man some facilitation fee.

However, sometime in 1990, he said he was arrested, charged and later on acquitted for having allegedly undertaken a double registration of his identity card.

“An order is hereby issued compelling and directing the 1st respondent (registrar of persons) to forthwith replace the petitioner’s (Gulleid) lost identity card,” read the judgment in part.

The court further awarded Gulleid Sh500,000 as compensation for damages and violation of his rights to fair administrative action.

Gulleid said since 1990, he has continuously applied for the replacement of his ID and even visited the registrar of person’s offices in Nairobi to no avail.

In 2010, Gulleid said he was informed by the registrar of persons that he had been blocked in the ID registration system because of the alleged double entry in 1989.

Consequently, during the Covid-19 pandemic, he was unable to receive donations from the government since he did not have an ID despite being a Kenyan.

To prove his identity as a Kenyan citizen, Gulleid produced his father’s ID, his school leaving certificate, a copy of his lost identity card and a letter from regional intelligence coordinator at the Coast region who confirmed that he is a Kenyan citizen.

The registrar of persons had, however, opposed the application saying it was misconceived, frivolous and an abuse of the court process.

“From the foregoing, and the failure by the respondents to rebut the factual matters in the amended petition, this court finds that the petitioner has proved on a balance of probability that he was condemned unheard by the 1st respondent,” read the judgment.