2ndInterested Party: 26. The 2nd interested party urged this court to adopt a purposive interpretation of section 56 of the Act. Indicating that the key point should be to ascertain when the elements of a pleadable claim came to existence, to warrant an investigation and a decision from the respondent. 27. The 2nd interested party cited the cases of Central Electrical Board v Halifax Corporation [1963] AC 785 and Elijah Sikona & George Pariken Narok on behalf of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mara Conservancy & 5 others [2014] eKLR. Analysis and Determination: 28. I have carefully considered the application, the adavits on record and after a careful consideration of the respective submissions, case law and the relevant law, I have identied the following issues for determination:A. Whether the preliminary objection is sustainable in law. B. Whether the ODPC acted in excess of jurisdiction or power conferred under the Data Protection Act. C. Whether the other reliefs sought have been proven. Whether the Preliminary Objection is Sustainable in Law: 29. In Civil Suit No 85 of 1992, Oraro v Mbaja [2005] 1 KLR 141, Ojwang J (as he then was), cited with approval the position in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969)EA and stated as follows on the operation of preliminary objection: “ …. I think the principle is abundantly clear. A “preliminary objection”, correctly understood, is now well identied as, and declared to be a point of law which must not be blurred with factual details liable to be contested and in any event, to be proved through the processes of evidence. Any assertion which claims to be a preliminary objection, and yet it bears factual aspects calling for proof, or seeks to adduce evidence for its authentication, is not, as a matter of legal principle, a true preliminary objection which the court should allow to proceed.” 30. The issue of locus standi raises a point of law that touches on the capacity to institute this suit, and it should be resolved at the earliest opportunity. Locus standi is dened in Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition (page 1026) as “the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum”. 31. In the case of Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliances & 5 others (2014)eKLR, where the Court held that; “ It is proper to note that the evaluation of locus ought to be based upon the constitutional consideration of capacity (articles 3, 22 and 258, the nature of the suit and the enforceability of the orders sought. These considerations inform the enforcement mechanisms and coherent clarity of the following inquiries. Who will the orders be enforced against? Who bears the costs of litigation if at all? Who represent the parties in court?” kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/258092/ 10