12. The dened a data subject as an identied or identiable natural person who was the subject of personal data. It dened an identiable natural person as a person who could be identied directly or indirectly, by reference to an identier such as a name, an identication number, location data, and an online identier or to one or more factors specic to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social or social identity. Article 260 of the dened a person to include a company, association or other body of persons whether incorporated or unincorporated. From the , it was evident that companies, limited liability partnerships, and other legal entities were not considered data subjects. As such, legal entities could not bring complaints to the Data Protection Commissioner. The applicants were partners in the 3rd applicants law rm. The applicants had the capacity to lodge a complaint with the ODPC under the. 13. The High Court’s power and authority ows from the and the . Section 11(1) (h) of the provided that in proceedings for judicial review under section 8, the court may grant any order that was just and equitable, including an order remitting the matter for reconsideration by the administrator. Application allowed Orders i. An order of certiorari was issued to remove to the High Court for of quashing the decision of the office of the Data Protection Commission dated January 6, 2023 in respect of the Reference No Odpc/conf/1/5/v01 1(112), ODPC Complaint No 677 Of 2022 Allen Waiyaki Gichuhi & Charles Wambugu Wamae Vs Florence Mathenge and Ambrose Waigwa. ii. Declaration issued that the respondent lacked the jurisdiction to make the final determination dated January 6, 2023 as its jurisdiction came to an end by way of effluxion of time. iii. Declaration issued that the decision that a person as described under section 56(2) of the , be read together with the schedule of the as envisaged in rule 2 as per the , 2013, to include individuals, organisations, company, association or any other body of persons whether incorporated or unincorporated. iv. Declaration issued that the decision of the respondent dated January 6, 2023, violated the principles of procedural fairness. v. An order of mandamus was issued compelling the respondent to readmit for fresh investigations the applicants’ complaint dated July 20, 2022. vi. The respondent shall complete the fresh investigations within 30 days from the date of readmission. vii. Costs awarded to the applicants. Citations Cases 1. Alfred Njau and Others v City Council of Nairobi (Civil Appeal 74 of 1982; [1983] KECA 56 (KLR); (1982) KAR 229) — Explained 2. Allen Waivaki Gichuhi & Charles Wambugu Wamae v Florence Mathenge And Ambrose Waigwa (Odpc/conf/1/5/v01 1(112), And Odpc Complaint No 677) — Explained 3. Aprim Consultants v Parliamentary Service Commission & Another (Civil Appeal No E039 OF 2021) — Explained 4. Elijah Sikona & George Pariken Narok on behalf of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance V Mara Conservancy & 5 others (Civil Case 37 of 2013; [2014] KEHC 4420 (KLR)) — Mentioned 5. Joho & another v Shahbal & 2 others (Petition10 of 2013; [2014]eKLR; [2014] 1 KLR 111) — Explained 6. Joint Venture of Lex Oileld Solutions Ltd & CFAO Kenya Ltd v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 4 others (Civil Appeal 022 of 2022; [2022] KECA 424 (KLR)) — Mentioned 7. Judicial Service Commission v Davis Gitonga Karani (Civil Appeal 305 of 2019; [2020] KECA 16 (KLR)) — Explained 8. Karua, Martha Wangari v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, Seki Lempaka, Anne Waiguru & Peter Ndambiri (Petition 3 of 2019; [2019] KESC 26 (KLR)) — Mentioned kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/258092/ 4