Kenya’s High Court has declared unconstitutional policies and administrative practices that obstruct refugees seeking work permits, and ordered immigration authorities to overhaul the way applications are handled.
Justice Roselyne Aburili found that the barriers amounted to indirect discrimination and undermined refugees’ dignity. The decision, delivered on 11 November, followed a constitutional petition brought by the legal aid organisation Kituo Cha Sheria and other petitioners.
The court ordered a review of the policies, practices and procedures governing refugee work-permit applications within 360 days. It also directed the Director of Immigration Services to determine pending applications within 180 days and give written reasons for refusals.
The ruling concerns Class M permits, which are intended for recognised refugees and eligible spouses who want to work or engage in an occupation, trade, business or profession in Kenya. It requires changes to the application system; it does not mean that every pending application must be approved.
What the court found
The judge concluded that the way immigration authorities handled applications had denied refugees equal treatment compared with other categories of migrants. She found that the practices breached constitutional guarantees of equality before the law and freedom from discrimination.
She also found that an unpublished policy had excluded refugees from consideration for permits. That approach was inconsistent with the constitutional principles of transparency, accountability and good governance, the court held.
The judgment addressed the absence of a clear and accessible procedure, failures to deal with applications within a reasonable time and the lack of written reasons for decisions. The judge found that those shortcomings violated the right to fair administrative action.
As part of the review, immigration authorities were directed to publish clear guidelines for refugee work-permit applications. The court also required written reasons when an application is refused or left undetermined. Justice Aburili retained supervisory jurisdiction to monitor implementation of the orders.
The case was brought in 2025 against the Cabinet Secretary for Interior and National Administration and other respondents. The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights welcomed the judgment, recognising the role of Kituo Cha Sheria and refugee petitioners in bringing the challenge.
How the permit system works
Kenya’s Refugees Act of 2021 already recognises the right of a refugee recognised under the Act to engage in employment or enterprise, or practise a profession or trade. That right is subject to applicable laws, with professional qualifications recognised by the relevant Kenyan authorities where required.
The Class M permit provides a route for refugees to work within the immigration system. Published government guidance describes the permit as free and lists requirements including a completed application form, a valid refugee certificate and a recognition letter from the UN refugee agency and refugee authorities.
A separate online immigration information pack lists additional documents, including copies of a valid national passport and tax-compliance certificates. The published lists are not identical. The judgment’s direction to issue clear, accessible guidelines is intended to address the way the system operates in practice.
The distinction between applying for a permit and receiving a decision matters to the court’s orders. Officials must determine outstanding applications, while a refusal must be accompanied by reasons. The directions do not remove the need for applications to be considered under the applicable rules.
Implementation remains ahead
The decision adds a court mandate to Kenya’s wider efforts to improve refugees’ access to work and economic activity. The government’s Shirika Plan seeks to move away from prolonged encampment and towards greater socioeconomic inclusion and self-reliance.
Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen has said refugees can use their identification documents to register SIM cards and access digital and financial services, including mobile money. Access to those services is separate from the work-permit process addressed in the judgment.
The immediate orders place responsibility on immigration authorities to review their procedures and deal with existing applications. Whether those changes deliver a more accessible process will depend on their implementation. The court has kept a role in supervising that work rather than treating the publication of the judgment as the end of the matter.
