48 and 50 of the Constitution. He argues that the respondent’s Terms of Service does not deal with violation of rights under the Bill of rights. 5th Interested Party’s Case 68. Mugambi Kiai, the 5th interested party’s Regional Director on its behalf filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 24th November 2023. 69. He depones in opposition that the respondent’s jurisdictional averments have no basis in fact and law. He notes that the respondent’s impugned actions arose as a result of content moderation that was being conducted in Kenya although complaints arose from Ethiopia. Furthermore, that the respondent’s content moderation for the East Africa region is based in Kenya. He in addition underscores that it was apparent that the respondent’s operation has a global reach including Kenya and thus not in doubt that they operate in Kenya. 70. He argues that every person despite their nationality has a right to institute proceedings in Court claiming violation of a right or a fundamental freedom under the Bill of rights. In this case he avers that it was, the infringement occasioned by the content moderation. 71. He also challenges the assertion of constitutional avoidance since the petition raises constitutional issues on the respondent’s business model in addition to the other averments raised in the petition. Therefore, he states that the petition raises issues of public interest that can only be addressed by constitutional resolution. He on this premise avers that there are circumstances under which an exemption is made to the doctrine of constitutional avoidance such as this petition. 72. He further posits that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners reside in Kenya therefore have the requisite locus standi to institute the instant suit. Moreover, it is noted that the petition is brought on behalf of a class of persons who use Facebook in various capacities within Kenya thus unfeasible to propose that the suit be instituted in the State of California. He states that the petition transcends the individual relationship between the respondent and its users as affects millions of people including those who do not even use the Platform. The Other Interested Parties responses 73. The other interested parties’ responses and submissions are not in the Court file or Court Online Platform (CTS). Respondent’s Submissions 74. The respondent through Coulson Harney LLP Advocates filed two sets of submissions dated 12th February 2024 and 19th April 2024.These submissions were made in reply to the parties’ responses not the respondent’s application. 75. Counsel on a preliminary note opposed the responses for being filed late. That is long after the deadlines were issued and that they did not seek leave of the Court to file the responses. In this regard, Counsel urged that the late responses be disregarded by the Court and petition be dismissed. 76. Reliance was placed in Benard Maina Kamau v Sunripe (1976) Limited (2014) eKLR where it was held that: “Parties should not be allowed to disobey orders and directions issued by the courts and orders and directions issued by the court must be adhered to without fail.” 77. Counsel in addition noted that the 3rd interested party’s reply lacks merit as raises unfounded and irrelevant allegations that fail to address the respondent’s averments on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction. 78. Like arguments were made with reference to the petitioners’ responses and submissions, 2nd, 3rd and 7th interested parties’ responses. Reliance was placed in Francis Karioki Muruatetu &another v Republic & 5 others (2016) eKLR where the Supreme Court prohibited the interested party from introducing new issues for determination by the Court. The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 2256051208128601561718914604 Tracking Number:OOEX9A2025 12/23