36.According to the 5th Respondent, judicial review is not available against private entities like the 5th respondent, which is not subject to the statutory obligations under the Data Protection Act. 37.In its written submissions, the 5th Respondent contends that the Applicants failed to approach the 6th Respondent ODPC for resolution of the dispute, thereby bypassing the prescribed procedure. This is said to have contravened the principle of exhaustion, as emphasized by the Court of Appeal in Speaker of the National Assembly v. Karume (Civil Application 92 of 1992) [1992] KECA 42 (KLR), where the court is said to have emphasised the need to strictly follow statutory procedures for redress of any grievance provided under the law. It is also submitted that the Applicants have failed to satisfy the doctrine of exhaustion as was held in Jeremiah Memba Ocharo v Evangeline Njoka & 3 others [2022] eKLR. 38.The 5th Respondent also relies on the case of Jeremiah Memba Ocharo v Evangeline Njoka & 3 others supra, regarding exceptions to recourse to internal dispute resolution mechanisms in line with the doctrine of exhaustion. It is submitted that the ex parte Applicants have failed to show that the instant application falls within the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion as stated in the above case, noting that Section 64 of the Data Protection Act provides for the right of appeal to this Court. Page 15 of 84