28. (1) A person who suers damage by reason of a contravention of a requirement of this Act is entitled to compensation for that damage from the data controller or the data processor. (2) Subject to subsection (1)— a data controller involved in processing of personal data is liable for any damage caused by the processing; and (b) a data processor involved in processing of personal data is liable for damage caused by the processing only if the processor — (i) has not complied with an obligation under the Act specically directed at data processors; or (ii) has acted outside, or contrary to, the data controller's lawful instructions. (3) A data controller or data processor is not liable in the manner specied in subsection (2) if the data controller or data processor proves that they are not in any way responsible for the event giving rise to the damage. (4) In this section, "damage" includes nancial loss and damage not involving nancial loss, including distress.” Further, a party aggrieved by the decision of the Data Commissioner has the right of appeal to the High Court as provided for in Section 64 as follows: “ 64. 29. (a) A person against whom any administrative action is taken by the Data Commissioner, including in enforcement and penalty notices, may appeal to the High Court” I also borrow from the position in Governor of Kericho County v Kenya Tea Development Agency & 30 others Ex-Parte KTDA Management Services Limited [2016] eKLR cited by the Respondent where the court held that: “ We agree with the respondent that the allegations raised about price xing and manipulation falls within the province of investigation by the Competition Authority established under the Competition Act (Chapter 504 of the Laws of Kenya). Under section 4 of the Act, the Authority is empowered to receive complaints from legal or natural persons or consumer bodies and has the power to investigate restrictive trade practices which include price xing manipulation. We are of the view that the Competition Act provides an ecacious remedy for resolution of matters concerning price-xing and manipulation. This is not to say that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with allegations of breach of fundamental rights and freedoms in such case. It only means that the High Court recognises that there are other legal bodies that exist to resolve certain disputes. This principle is recognised by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution that obliges the court to promote alternative dispute resolution. Further because of Articles 10 and 21 of the Constitution, these bodies are obliged to give eect to the National values and principles of governance and provisions of the Bill of Rights.” kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/237212/ 8