As of February 1964 Mombassa was no longer the Protectorate or Kenya, and FR and other research has shown that Mombassa considered itself and refer to itself as the Republic of Kenya as early as October 1963 prior to the independence of Kenya Colony with which it merged in December 1963.
It seems to me entirely possible that in Feb. 1964, a Kenya Protectorate birth certification format distinct from the Kenya Colony format could have been modified with a new Republic of Kenya Coat of Arms.
As to Australian functionaries ending up in Kenya, isn't it true that any Commonwealth citizen would have been more than welcome and able to apply for a UK colonial job in Kenya at that time? Look at Lavender, a Brit who was proved to have been a Kenyan functionary.
Sorry, but the idea that the Bomford certificate was modified from the alleged Obama certificate seems ridiculous to me. I've read the claims of people saying it, and all I can see in those is that they know very little about computer graphic formats - they're using normal artifacts caused by scanning, and image compression as evidence it's a fake. Well, no, it's just evidence it's been scanned and saved on a computer. David Bomford has confirmed numerous times that it his birth certificate and it is a verifiable and court certified document. It is his legal birth certificate, if it wasn't, he'd have been charged with perjury by now (he is a Commonwealth civil servant and as such is legally empowered to witness official documents - lying about such a document would be a very serious offence that would not be ignored).
It seems to me entirely possible that in Feb. 1964, a Kenya Protectorate birth certification format distinct from the Kenya Colony format could have been modified with a new Republic of Kenya Coat of Arms.
You miss the point about the Coat of Arms. There are rules on how these things are used on official documents. The Coat of Arms of Kenya is not the Coat of Arms of the Coast Province. It would not be used on a Coast Province official document, anymore than the Australian Coat of Arms would not be used on a South Australian or Victorian document. Yes, they are located within those countries, but they are not entitled to bear those arms (in the original and classic sense of the term). You should not find the coat of arms of Kenya on a Coast Province document. If that was the only mistake, it'd still be significant - but on a document that also refers to the 'District of Mombassa' rather than 'Mombassa District' and which has a price given in units of currency that weren't used in Kenya, these single mistakes are adding up pretty quickly.
They haven't got the shield right. They haven't got the currency right. They haven't got the terminology right. How many mistakes do you need before you start to think there's something not quite right about a document?