should be strictly followed. Reference was made to the provisions of sections 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66 of the Data Protection Act, 2019 with particular attention to section 65 which provides: “ A person who suers damage by reason of a contravention of a requirement of this Act is entitled to compensation for that damage from the data controller or data processor” 7. The Respondent urged the Court to consider the position in Governor of Kericho County v Kenya Tea Development Agency & 30 others Ex-Parte Ktda Management Services Limited [2016] eKLR where it was state: “ We are of the view that the Competition Act provides an ecacious remedy for resolution of matters concerning price-xing and manipulation. This is not to say that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with allegations of breach of fundamental rights and freedoms in such case. It only means that the High Court recognises that there are other legal bodies that exist to resolve certain disputes. This principle is recognised by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution that obliges the court to promote alternative dispute resolution. Further because of Articles 10 and 21 of the Constitution, these bodies are obliged to give eect to the National values and principles of governance and provisions of the Bill of Rights.” 8. The court was also invited to consider the position in Rich Productions Ltd v Kenya Pipeline Company & another Petition No. 173 of 2014, where the High Court explained why it must be slow to undermine prescribed alternative dispute resolution mechanisms thus: “ The reason why the Constitution and the law establish dierent institutions and mechanism for dispute resolution in dierent sectors is to ensure that such disputes as may arise are resolved by those with the technical competence and the jurisdiction to deal with them. While the Court retains the inherent and wide jurisdiction under Article 165 to supervise bodies such as the 2nd respondent, such supervision is limited in various respects, which I need, not go into here. Suce to say that it (the court) cannot exercise such jurisdiction in circumstances where parties before it seek to avoid mechanisms and processes provided by law, and convert the issues in dispute into constitutional issues when it is not.” 9. It was further submitted by the Respondent that the issues raised in the Petition fell under civil law of tort and ought not to be tailored as constitutional human rights. Reliance was placed on the case of C N M v W M G [2018] eKLR where it was held: “ Courts abhor the practice of parties converting every issue into a constitutional question and ling suits disguised as constitutional Petitions when in fact they do no not fall anywhere close to violation to constitutional Rights.” 10. Additionally, the Respondent in urging the Court to allow the notice of preliminary objection cited the case of Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta v Nairobi Star Publications Limited [2013] eKLR where it was held: “ I need say no more. Where there is a remedy in Civil Law, a party should pursue that remedy and I say so well aware of the decision in Haco Industries (supra) where the converse may have been expressed as the position. My mind is clear however that not every ill in society should attract a constitutional sanction and as stated in AG vs S.K. Dutambala Cr. kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/237212/ 3