In rejoinder subm ission, the counsel for the defendant observed that the plaintiff and her counsel are unaw are of the pro visions of sect ion 37, 39 and 50 of the Act and the pow ers of the Com m ission. H e noted that sect ion 50 of the Act em pow ers the Com m ission to order for paym ent of com pensation to the D ata Subject . I have given due consideration to subm issions of the counsel of both parties. I think this prelim inary objection shall not ham per m e m uch. This is because unlike the subm ission of the counsel for the plaintiff that dam ages ( com pensation on tort) could not be granted by the Com m ission, the Act, under Section 50 as correctly argued by the counsel fo r the defendant is em pow ered to order com pensation apart fr om any penalty to the data controller or the data processor w ho is at faulty in favour of a data subject w ho pro ves his com plaint/allegation. Given that there is a C om m ission em pow ered to entertain a com plaint of this nature and m ake orders fo r com pensation (dam ages), and the law being sett led that a party has to exhaust those other rem edies before resorting to Court and a right to appeal to the H igh Court against such decision of the Comm ission is available to the plaintiff, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this m att er. I am happy as I find relief in Salim 0. Kabora v. 5