filed its Replying Affidavit sworn on 28th November 2023. 57. Opposing the respondent’s claim of lack of an identifiable nexus between the 1st and 2nd petitioners’ claims and Kenya, the 1st interested party submitted that the 2nd petitioner resides and works in Kenya. Moreover, the petition details that the inciteful comments were directed at the 2nd petitioner while he was residing in Kenya. It is further noted that the 3rd petitioner is a Kenyan NGO which in addition has a Facebook account. In view of all the petitioners, it is averred that the nexus is the content moderation of Facebook which takes place in Kenya. This is done on behalf of most sub-Saharan countries. In addition, it is stated that the offensive material complained of remains available in Kenya. 58. It is as well averred that while the respondent argues that it is a foreign Company, it operates and does business within Kenya which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. The 1st interested party notes also that the allowance of the publishing of inappropriate content in regard to propaganda of war, incitement to violence, hate speech and advocacy of hatred is prohibited under Article 33(2) of the Constitution. 59. Furthermore, the 1st interested party argues that the blatant violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms envisaged under the Constitution makes it certain that this Court has the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 60. In like manner, the 1st interested party argues that Article 2(5) of the Constitution places an international obligation on this Court to ensure that human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. It is averred that the UN Guiding Principle 11 places a corporate responsibility on all corporations including international corporations to respect human rights and freedoms. As such, it is asserted that this Court cannot turn a blind eye to the violation of rights and abuses by entities operating in Kenya. 61. The 1st interested party also challenges the respondent’s assertion that the petition invokes the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. This is owing to the flagrant constitutional violations that are cited in the petition. 2nd Interested Party’s Case 62. The 2nd interested party in opposition to the application filed grounds of opposition dated 7th February 2024 on the grounds that: In opposition to the respondent’s statement that the Constitution of Kenya does not apply extraterritorially to this action because the alleged acts occurred and have effects outside Kenya. i. As of the date of the petition, content moderation of content posted on the respondent's Facebook Platform by users in most Sub-Saharan countries, Kenya and Ethiopia included, was moderated by the respondent in Kenya ii. The 1st petitioner was gravely affected by the respondent's content moderation activities in Kenya and the 2nd petitioner lives in Kenya. iii. The respondent's failures in algorithmic design and effective content moderation have an effect in Kenya as they violate and threaten fundamental rights and freedoms under the Bill of Rights of Facebook users in Kenya and the welfare and rights of the people of Kenya iv. The petitioners bring the instant petition not only on their own behalf or for their own interests but also in the interest of the following classes: a) Facebook users within Facebook's content moderation ambit of Kenya who have suffered human rights violations as a result of the respondent failing to take down Facebook posts that violated the Bill of Rights even after making reports to the Respondent, b) Facebook users within Kenya whose rights have been violated from the Facebook algorithm serving them with inciteful, hateful and dangerous content while they were in Kenya, or who reported inciteful, hateful and dangerous content which was not taken down and led to further violation of their rights, and The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 2256051208128601561718914604 Tracking Number:OOEX9A2025 10/23