by rendering a decision on a complaint outside the 90-day timeframe - whether a purposive interpretation of legislation could excuse a tribunal that had rendered a decision outside its statutory timeframe - whether the delay of a tribunal of making a decision outside its statutory timeframe on account of the delay of the applicants in providing evidence could be excused - , section 56(5) Administrative Law – reliefs – where an administrative body acted outside its jurisdiction by rendering a decision outside of statutory timelines – reliefs available to parties before such an administrative body – remitting of the dispute to the administrative body - whether the High Court could remit a matter decided by a tribunal out of the statutory timeframe back to the tribunal for reconsideration – sections 8 and 11(1)(h) Civil Practice and Procedure – locus standi – locus standi to institute judicial review proceedings – locus standi of a law firm to file judicial review proceedings against the Office of the Data Protection Commission for a decision rendered out of time – where the respondent before the ODPC was the former employee of the law firm who had shared client information with third parties - whether a law firm that was appealing a decision against the Office of the Data Protection Commission which held that the act of its former employee sharing court documents to their personal email and third parties had locus standi to file a judicial review application contesting the legality of the decision. Words and Phrases - locus standi – definition - the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum - , 9th Edition, page 1026. Brief facts 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. 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 (ODPC/ the respondent) vide a complaint dated July 20, 2022. Upon receipt of the aforementioned complaint, the ODPC considered it and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved the applicants led the instant suit on grounds that the complaint was lodged with the respondent on July 20, 2022. It took the respondent about 6 months to investigate and conclude the complaint which was outside its statutory timelines. According to the applicants the respondent ought to have concluded investigation and rendered its determination by October 19, 2022. The applicants contended that the respondent’s jurisdiction came to an end by way of euxion of time. On the euxion of time the respondent contended that it was highly probable that the applicants jointly, severally and deliberately designed that the respondent would be time constrained having caused delay on their part by deliberately leaving out facts that would be necessary to determine the complaint. The respondent further stated that whereas statutes provided for express timelines for action to be taken, the courts had previously dealt with euxion of time and taken a purposive approach to it. Issues i. Whether the Oce of the Data Protection Commission (ODPC) acted in excess of its jurisdiction by rendering a decision on a complaint outside the 90-day timeframe set by section 56(5) of the . ii. Whether the High Court could remit a matter decided by a tribunal out of the statutory timeframe back to the tribunal for reconsideration. iii. Whether a purposive interpretation of legislation could excuse a tribunal that had rendered a decision outside its statutory timeframe. iv. Whether the delay of a tribunal of making a decision outside its statutory timeframe on account of the delay of the applicants in providing evidence could be excused. v. Whether a law rm that was appealing a decision against the Oce of the Data Protection Commission which held that the act of its former employee sharing court documents to their personal email and third parties had locus standi to le a judicial review application contesting the legality of the decision. kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/258092/ 2

Select target paragraph3