The Applicants’ Case: 4. The application is supported by the grounds on its face, a supporting adavit sworn by Charles Wambugu Wamae on March 3, 2023 and a further adavit dated March 16, 2023 and written the written submissions dated March 23, 2023. 5. It is the applicants case that on July 8, 2022, the Applicants discovered that on diverse dates between June 2021 to July 2022, the 1st interested party shared with the 2nd interested party condential information pertaining the personal and sensitive data of the 3rd applicant’s clients. 6. Upon the discovery of the unauthorized and unlawful sharing of the data, which also included the intellectual property of the 3rd applicant, the applicants lodged a complaint with the oce of the Data Protection Commission (hereinafter referred to as (ODPC) vide a complaint dated July 20, 2022. 7. Upon receipt of the aforementioned complaint, the Respondent assigned the complaint reference Odpc/conf/1/5/v01 1(112), And Odpc Complaint No677 Of 2022 {{> Allen Waivaki Gichuhi & Charles Wambugu Wamae v Florence Mathenge and Ambrose Waigwa}} in line with its mandate under section 56 of the Data Protection Act. 8. The respondent rendered its determination dated January 6, 2023 wherein it dismissed the complaint. 9. The applicants were aggrieved by the above impugned determination on the following counts, that;i. The decision was made by a body lacking jurisdiction by virtue of euxion of time. ii. The decision of the respondent expressly excluded evidence placed before it therefore violating the applicants right to a fair hearing as envisaged under article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, and thus condemned the applicants unheard and in manner that is procedurally unfair. iii. The decision of the respondent expressly misrepresented that the applicant had not placed evidence before its, despite having responded to all additional queries of the respondent and providing all documentation sought. iv. The decision of the respondent expressly misrepresented that the applicants advocates lacked the authority to act despite the same being provided, thus, challenging the applicant’s right to be represented by counsel. v. The decision of the respondent demonstrates an apparent bias as against the applicants as it failed to rely on the evidence presented by the complainants in favour of the respondent. vi. The decision of the respondent violates the principle of natural justice and the principles of Fair Administrative Action. vii. The decision failed to deliver substantive justice as the same relied technicalities intended to deny the applicants a fair and just hearing. viii. The respondent determined extraneous issues that were not before the commission for determination, thus, arriving that a decision that was improper in law and fact. kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/258092/ 7