4. The Petitioner further avers that about one year later or thereabouts, the respondent published the said picture in its website inviting stakeholders to a webinar that was to be held on 21/7/2021 to validate a proposal for a pipeline project in partnership with African Development Bank on how universities could be supported to cope/mitigate the challenge of Covid-19. 5. The petitioner avers that the Respondent used his image/likeness and persona without his express consent for marketing purposes to solicit funds from the African Development Bank. 6. The Petitioner maintained that Respondent’s actions were an utter infringement of his fundamental rights and freedoms. 7. The petitioner avers that he was reliably advised that for his image to appear on such advertisement, the respondent should have sought the petitioner’s consent and suciently paid for such services. 8. The petitioner further avers that he was reliably advised that an image/likeness and persona can only be inherent to one person and the respondent had exploited the petitioner’s identity/image for commercial gain without the petitioners consent hence invading the petitioner’s privacy contrary to Article 31 of the Constitution. 9. The petitioner avers that the respondent’s action has subjected him to psychological torture because the society, peers. Associates, family, business partners and aliates perceive him to have graduated from University of Kabianga thus concluding that he had been untruthful of his academic credentials from the University of Nairobi and that unless his prayers are granted, he will continue to suer the complained violations in a manner that cannot be compensated by way of damages. 10. The Petition is opposed by the Respondent who led a Replying Adavit sworn by Professor Wilson Kipngeno in which he deposed as follow:- 11. The Respondent avers that the matter raised by petitioner in his petition and supporting adavit was not within the realm of constitutional dispute to be determined by the High Court and that the same should have been litigated in a Small Claims Court or the Magistrate Court. That the petition failed to meet the structure of pleading a constitutional petition with precision as laid down in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979]eKLR infLR Nairobi Miscellaneous Criminal Application 4 of 1979. 12. The Respondent denied being in a prot-making business and that the petitioner’s picture as published in its website did not amount to infringement of the petitioner’s rights but rather portrayed him in a positive light as a graduate. 13. The Respondent maintains that the petitioner lacked the property rights over pictures taken during public ceremony and that the petitioner did not show that the Respondent used his image for commercial or other exploitative activities. 14. The parties led written submissions that I have considered. 15. The Petitioner submitted that the Respondent’s use of the Petitioner’s recreated image without his express consent to advertise its webinar, contravened his rights under Article 31 of the Constitution and that the use of his image by the Respondent was intended for commercial and/or other advantages to the Respondent. He cited several authorities to buttress his point among them, Jessicar Clarise Wanjiru vs Davinci Aesthetics & Reconstruction Centre & 2 Others [2017] eKLR, Joel Mutuma Kirimi & Anor v National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) [2020] eKLR and Wanjiku v Machakos University (Petition E021 of 2021) KEHC 10599 (KLR), kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/251166/ 2