41. In Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others [2012] eKLR, Application No 2 of 2011, the Supreme Court held as follows on jurisdiction: “ [68]. A court’s jurisdiction ows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law.” 42. The applicants contend that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to make a determination of the complaint under section 56(5) of the Data protection Act that expressly provides that:“ (5) 43. A complaint made to the Data Commissioner shall be investigated and concluded within ninety days.” This court in its decision in JR No E1155 of 2020, Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others ex parte Express Automation Limited (unreported) while addressing its mind on the issue of timelines cited the Court of Appeal decision in Civil Appeal No E039 of 2021, Aprim Consultants v Parliamentary Service Commission & another where the court held as follows; “ Our reading of the Act is that the High Court was under an express duty to make its determination within the time prescribed. During such time did its jurisdiction exist, but it was a time bound jurisdiction that ran out and ceased by euxion of time. The moment the 45 days ended, the jurisdiction also ended. Thus any judgement returned outside time would be without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity, bereft of any force of law. That legal conclusion remains irrespective of the avowed reasons, no matter how logical, sound, reasonable or persuasive they may be. No amount of policy, wisdom or practicality can invest a decision made without jurisdiction with any legal authority.’’ 44. Further, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision delivered 185 days outside the 45 days stipulated in section 175 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. It described the High Court judgment as a nullity holding the court’s jurisdiction is time bound, so it lapsed with the euxion of the 45 days. 45. So, what is the eect of the exceeded timelines? As held by this court in Kenya Power & Lighting Co v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (Judicial Review Application 46 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 496 (KLR), the eect of this matter having surpassed the timelines within which this court is obligated by law to conclude the same is that the court is divested of jurisdiction to entertain the matter any further. 46. This has also been emphasized in the case of Harun Meitamei Lempaka v Lemanken Aramat v Lempaka & 2 others [2014] eKLR where the Supreme Court rendered itself thus:“ We have to note that the electoral process, and the electoral dispute-resolution mechanism in Kenya, is marked by certain special features. A condition set in respect of electoral disputes, is the strict adherence to the timelines prescribed by the Constitution and the electoral law. The jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine electoral disputes is inherently tied to the issue of time, and a breach of this strict scheme of time removes the dispute from the jurisdiction of the court”. kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/258092/ 12