Analysis and Determination 19. After a careful consideration of the respective submissions and the relevant law, I have demarcated the following issues for determination: i. Whether the Preliminary Objection is sustainable in law. ii. Whether the Court is barred by the doctrine of exhaustion from entertaining the dispute. iii. Whether there are any constitutional issues raised in the Petition. Whether the Preliminary Objection is sustainable in law. 20. The jurisprudence on preliminary objections is exhaustive. In Civil Suit No. 85 of 1992, Oraro vs. Mbaja [2005] 1 KLR 141, Ojwang J (as he then was), cited with approval the position in Mukisa Biscuit -vs- West End Distributors (supra) and stated as follows on the operation of preliminary objection: “ …. I think the principle is abundantly clear. A “preliminary objection”, correctly understood, is now well identied as, and declared to be a point of law which must not be blurred with factual details liable to be contested and in any event, to be proved through the processes of evidence. Any assertion which claims to be a preliminary objection, and yet it bears factual aspects calling for proof, or seeks to adduce evidence for its authentication, is not, as a matter of legal principle, a true preliminary objection which the Court should allow to proceed.” 21. The Courts have also addressed the value of pleadings when it comes to ascertaining the sustainability of a preliminary objection. In Omondi -vs- National Bank of Kenya Ltd & Others [2001] KLR 579; [2001] 1 EA 177, it was observed that: “ …In determining (Preliminary Objections) the Court is perfectly at liberty to look at the pleadings and other relevant matter in its records and it is not necessary to le adavit evidence on those matters…What is forbidden is for counsel to take, and the Court to purport to determine, a point of preliminary objection on contested facts or in the exercise of judicial discretion and therefore the contention that the suit is an abuse of the process of the Court for the reason that the defendant’s costs in an earlier suit have not been paid is not a true point of preliminary objection because to stay or not to stay a suit for such reason is not done ex debito justitiae (as of right) but as a matter of judicial discretion.” 22. The objection raises issues of jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, the doctrines of exhaustion as well as the Petitioners’ claim being a civil claim under the law of tort which are not constitutional in nature. I nd that the foregoing issues have the ability to bring to an end the Petition if allowed; thus the preliminary objection is sustainable in law. Whether the Court is barred by the doctrine of exhaustion from entertaining the dispute. 23. It is the Respondent’s position that the Petitioners before approaching court have failed to exhaust the available avenues for addressing their grievances with references being made to the provisions of the Data Protection Act, 2019. 24. I wish to make reference to Mombasa High Court Constitutional Petition No. 159 of 2018 consolidated with Constitutional Petition No. 201 of 2019 William Odhiambo Ramogi & 3 others v kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/237212/ 5