from the narrow scope of a contractual dispute but from the broad perspective of human rights violations in the digital space provided by the Facebook Platform. That the violation complained of occurred due to the acts or omissions of content moderators based in this country but whose impact extended to another jurisdiction through the use of the Face Book platform. 133. After a conscious scrutiny of the issues raised in this Petition, I am convinced that this is a Petition that raises pertinent issues deserving of serious consideration by the Court. 134. The jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted by the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. 135. The Petition raises fundamental concerns on acts or omissions that may have been made regarding content posted on Face Book Platform by content moderators based in Kenya that may impact on observance of human rights beyond Kenya through the use of social media. This in my view perfectly falls within the purview of this Court’s jurisdiction to consider under Article 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution. 136. It is thus the considered opinion of this Court that this Petition is one that warrants to be given a chance and be heard on merits as opposed to terminating it summarily at a preliminary level. 137. For reasons stated, the Respondent’s application to strike out the Petition is hereby rejected and dismissed. 138. Costs shall be in the cause. 139. I now turn to the Petitioner’s application for empanelment and the question is: Whether the petition dated 14th December 2022 raises substantial questions of law to warrant certification to the Chief Justice for the empanelment of an uneven number of Judges to hear the Petition 140. The Constitution guides on the kind of case(s) that should be considered for referral to the Chief Justice for hearing by a bench comprising uneven number of Judges. This is found in Article 165 (4) of the Constitution which states: (4) Any matter certified by the court as raising a substantial question of law under clause (3) (b) or (d) shall be heard by an uneven number of judges, being not less than three, assigned by the Chief Justice. Article 165 (3) and (b) (d) provide that— (b) jurisdiction to determine the question whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, infringed or threatened; (d) jurisdiction to hear any question respecting the interpretation of this Constitution including the determination of-i. the question whether any law is inconsistent with or in contravention of this Constitution; ii. the question whether anything said to be done under the authority of this Constitution or of any law is inconsistent with, or in contravention of, this Constitution; iii. any matter relating to constitutional powers of State organs in respect of county governments and any matter relating to the constitutional relationship between the levels of government; and The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 2256051208128601561718914604 Tracking Number:OOEX9A2025 20/23