30. In view of the foregoing, I nd that the Petitioners have not suciently demonstrated why the Petition ought to be exempted from the exhaustion rule. I am inclined to nd that the Petition is barred by the doctrine of exhaustion. Whether there are any constitutional issues raised. 31. The Honourable Court is guided by the position of the Supreme Court of Kenya on what amounts to a constitutional issue. In the case of Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] eKLR it was held: “ Although Article 22(1) of the Constitution gives every person the right to initiate proceedings claiming that a fundamental right or freedom has been denied, violated or infringed or threatened, a party invoking this Article has to show the rights said to be infringed, as well as the basis of his or her grievance. This principle emerges clearly from the High Court decision in Anarita Karimi Njeru vs. Republic, (1979) KLR 154: the necessity of a link between the aggrieved party, the provisions of the Constitution alleged to have been contravened, and the manifestation of contravention or infringement. Such principle plays a positive role, as a foundation of conviction and good faith, in engaging the constitutional process of dispute settlement.” 32. The issues raised in the instant Petition are in the nature of grievances between private parties. The Petition is anchored on the grounds that the Respondent failed to seek the Petitioners’ consent. The Court is of the considered view that the same does not amount to a constitutional issue but a dispute between private individuals. I marry this view with the position in Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (Supra) where it was held that: “ 11. Similarly, in Re Application by Bahadur [1986] L.R.C (Cost.) 297 at 298, the Court in Trinidad and Tobago held as follows; “The Constitution is not a general substitute for the normal procedures for invoking judicial control of administrative action. Where infringements of rights can found a claim under substantive law, the proper course is to bring the claim under that law and not under the Constitution”. 12. 33. I am in agreement with the above ndings and looking at Article 21 of the Constitution, it is the State and every State Organ that is required to “observe, protect, promote and fulll the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.” No such obligation is imposed on an individual (including a company) and so I am in agreement with the Respondent arguments in that regard...” In view of the foregoing, I arrive at the conclusion that the Petition fails to raise constitutional issues. It is not one that should be canvassed by this Court is a constitutional issue. Disposition 34. Flowing from the foregoing ndings and conclusions, the following orders of this Court do hereby issue: (a) The Preliminary Objection dated 12th August, 2021 is hereby upheld. kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/237212/ 9