Hauradhun v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies loses that status on Mauritian independence if they become a citizen of Mauritius, unless an exception in the Mauritius Independence Act 1968 applies. In section 3(2)(b), the words “so born” refer to birth in a protectorate or protected state under section 3(2)(a), not to birth as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Mauritius is excluded from the relevant definition of colony. A person whose parent had therefore lost citizenship before the person’s birth cannot acquire British citizenship by descent under sections 11 and 14 of the British Nationality Act 1981.

The claimant, born in Mauritius in 1979, sought recognition as a British citizen by descent. Her father had been born in Mauritius in 1949 and had been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth. The Secretary of State concluded that he had become a citizen of Mauritius when Mauritius became independent on 12 March 1968 and had consequently lost his former status.

The claimant challenged that conclusion by judicial review, arguing that section 3(2)(b) of the Mauritius Independence Act 1968 preserved her father’s citizenship. The issue was the proper construction of the statutory framework governing citizenship on Mauritian independence.

1. Claim dismissed. The Secretary of State had correctly concluded that the claimant was not a British citizen by descent. Costs were summarily assessed at £4,762.
2. Under section 2(2) of the Mauritius Independence Act 1968, a person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before independence ceased to be such a citizen if they became a citizen of Mauritius on independence day, subject to section 3.
3. Whether the claimant’s father became a citizen of Mauritius was determined by Mauritian domestic law. Section 20(1) of the Constitution of Mauritius provided that a person born in Mauritius who was then a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became a citizen of Mauritius on 12 March 1968.
4. The phrase “so born” in section 3(2)(b) referred plainly to the preceding reference in section 3(2)(a) to birth in a protectorate or protected state. It did not refer to being born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Mauritius was in any event excluded from the relevant definition of colony by section 3(5).
5. The claimant’s father was born in Mauritius, became a citizen of Mauritius on independence, and fell within none of the section 3 exceptions. He therefore ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies before the claimant’s birth. The reasoning in Ize-Iyamu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 118 applied with equal force.