55. Through Oscar Onyango Otieno the Deputy Data Commissioner’s in Paragraph 15 to 20 of his adavit dated 15.3.23 the Respondent admits that its nding was rendered out of time. He however proceeds to blames the Applicant for the delay in keeping time. 56. Two wrongs cannot make a right in law. The respondent cannot be heard to blame the applicant since it lacked the legal authority enlarge time. 57. In paragraph 17 of the said adavit, the respondent is inviting the court to consider the intention of the statutes by applying a purposive interpretation to the issue of timelines. 58. The court is of the rm view that where the Constitution or a statute has provided or set a strict time for the delivery of a judgment or a nding then the High Court cannot be called upon to apply a purposive interpretation of the law to enlarge time. Such an approach would be an aront of article 10 of the Constitution and in particular the rule of law. 59. Enlarging time in such a terrain would most certainly prejudice and or disadvantaged one or the other parties in the dispute. The respondents jurisdiction lapsed on the ninetieth day from the day the complaint is lodged. 60. This court lacks the constitutional power to breathe life into a nding that has been arrived at ultra vires under article 165 of the Constitution and I so hold. 61. From the record it can be gleaned that the ODPC acted procedurally within the principles of fair hearing in granting the parties patience and latitude to le documents out of time which promoted the right to fair hearing under article 50 of the Constitution. 62. This court further notes that at paragraph 20 of the replying adavit the respondent is urging the court to consider the compelling circumstances that existed at the time when it considered the complaint out of time. It is this court’s nding that no amount of compulsion, pressure or threats should be brought to bear on the ODPC to the extent of rendering a nding out of time. 63. Having arrived at the foregoing nding, then the other grounds that have been raised by the Applicants will not aect this courts’ nding on this issue of jurisdiction. 64. Informed by the orders that this court will give, the court will not delve into the other issues raised by the parties in their adavits or their submissions. To do so will compromise the parties’ respective cases. Who Can Lodge A Complaint Before The ODPC? 65. Article 31(c) & (d) of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have information relating to their family or private aairs unnecessarily required or revealed; and the privacy of their communications infringed. 66. The Data Protection Act is an Act of Parliament that gives eect to article 31(c) and (d) of the Constitution. It establishes the Oce of the Data Protection Commissioner to make provision for the regulation of the processing of personal data and to provide for the rights of data subjects and obligations of data controllers and processors and for connected purposes. 67. The Act then denes a “data subject” as an identied or identiable natural person who is the subject of personal data. It further denes an “identiable natural person” as a person who can be identied directly or indirectly, by reference to an identier such as a name, an identication number, location data, and an online identier or to one or more factors specic to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social or social identity. kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/258092/ 14