He observed that Courts would not normally entertain a matter which has a specific forum unless there is no proper remedy in the special forum referring me to the case of Attorney General v. Lohay Akonay & Another [1995] T.L.R. 80 among others. He reiterated the basic foundation of jurisdiction as stated in Fanuel Mantiri Ngunda v. Herman N'unda & Others [1995] T.L.R. 155. Mr. Kikwasi implored upon this Court to strike out the suit with c o s ts . The counsel for the plaintiff did not purchase the views of the counsel for the defendant. Mr. Mafie maintained that what is before this Court is tortious liability where the plaintiff is seeking compensation for unlawful interference and enjoyment of her privacy. He stressed in the reply submission that, in this suit the plaintiff is not complaining on how the data collected or processed. The counsel for the plaintiff said, the case of Tibe Rwakatare (administrator of the estate of the late Rwakatare) v. Juma Said Kasola, Land Case No. 19 of 2022, HC cited by Mr. Kikwasi is distinguishable. He finally beseeched this Court to find that the preliminary objection is misconceived, groundless, unfounded and frivolous with no any merits whatsoever and should be dismissed with costs. 4