https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10379

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION** **PETITION NO. E022 OF 2025** **IN THE MATTER ARTICLES 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29 AND 31 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ENSHRINED UNDER CHAPTER FOUR OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010** **BETWEEN** **LUCY CHEMUTAI TETEE …………………………………….PETITIONERS** **AND** **COLLINS LEITICH ALIAS GENERAL CHEPKULEY** **ALIAS GEN CHEPKULEY …………………………………….RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. Before this Court for determination is the Petitioners’ Petition dated 30th September 2025 which seeks the following prayers: 2. **A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Respondent violated, infringed and/or breached the petitioners' rights to privacy, human dignity by Posting and/or publishing his photograph, image and/or likeness without the petitioners' express consent, permission and/or any authority.** 3. **A declaration be and is hereby issued that the petitioner herein is entitled to protection and benefit under Article 20(1) and 2 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.** 4. **An order be and is hereby issued compelling the Respondent herein to compensate the petitioner with Kshs.5,000,000/= for each violation of constitutional right by the Respondent.** 5. **An order be and is hereby issued compelling the Respondent to compensate the petitioner with Kshs.5,000,000/= as damages for the Constitutional torts and acts of negligence committed upon her by the Respondent.** 6. **An order of permanent injunction be and is hereby issued prohibiting the Respondent from further publishing and/or posting the petitioner's photograph, image and/or likeness or in any other way without the petitioner's express consent.** 7. **A Prohibitory Order prohibiting the Respondents from further publishing private details of the Petitioner, including her registered mobile phone number +254721647826.** 8. **An order of mandatory injunction be and is hereby issued compelling the Respondent by himself, his agents, and/or followers to pull down, remove, and/or erase from his Facebook page/account and all other online platforms where his post/publication has been shared, the petitioner's private phone number +254721647826, photographs, images and/or likeness.** 9. **Any other relief this Honorable Court may deem fit to grant.** 10. **The cost of the petition be borne by the Respondent.** **Petitioner’s Case** 1. The Petitioner states that on 18th June 2025, the Respondent herein via his phone number +254724179148 contacted her and thereafter through his Facebook page and/or Facebook account with the name/title Gen Chepkuley, published/posted her photographs, images and/or likeness together with her private registered phone number +254721647826 via link <https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Z6ACCfUm5/>. 2. That the Respondent further to posting and/or publishing my photographs, images or likeness, captioned the said photographs, images and/or likeness as follows: "the lady you see here washed Lizz Chemutai and others of 215k each...father of Chemutai died due to depression of money lost...the con lady of Upront Agency Eldoret, Anaitwa Lucy Jemutai. Phone no +254721647826 tumeni salamu.” 3. That as a result of the Respondent's acts of releasing her private phone number and encouraging the public to contact her with the phrase "tumeni salamu", she has received over 1,000 spam texts and calls via WhatsApp, including threats to her life and that further to receiving threatening texts, she has also received text messages demanding money from people claiming they are police officers and bloggers, alleging that they would sanitize her business organization by alleging that the Respondent's post is propaganda. 4. The Petitioner further states that on 20th June 2025 at 1523hours, she reported the Respondent's action at Eldoret Central Police Station, where she was issued with OB/N0.73/25, and the issue is currently under investigation. 5. The Petitioner states that the publishing of her photograph, image and/or likeness by the Respondent with part of the caption "the con lady of Upront Agency Eldoret" has resulted in people & the world forming the impression that she is a conwoman and/or a swindler, which has subjected her to unmitigated ridicule and shame from peers, family and society. 6. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent's acts of posting/publishing her photograph, image and/or likeness and private phone number are an outright, gross and blatant violation of her constitutional freedom to security of person enshrined under **Article 29(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010** as the said post has caused psychological torture to her and her family. 7. The Petitioner further contends that Respondent's acts of posting/publishing her photograph, image and/or likeness and releasing her private phone number to public/world are an outright, gross and blatant violation of her Constitutional right to privacy as enshrined under **Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.** 8. According to the Petitioner the words captioned on the said photographs are, in their ordinary meaning, defamatory as the publication/post is fabricated, false and malicious. The Petitioner states that the Respondent's actions of posting/publishing her photograph, image and/or likeness with defamatory words attributed to her have inadvertently affected my business, Upfront Bridge International Agency Limited, which has extensive international recognition. 9. The Petitioner states that the publication/posting of her photographs, image and/or likeness by the respondent is a misuse of my image and amounts to maligning of her high reputation in society and further asserts that the publication/posting of her photographs, images, and/or likeness and release of her private phone number is a breach of her image and data rights. 10. The Petitioner contends that despite service of demand letter cum notice of intention to sue the Respondent has failed, neglected and/or refused to admit liability. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent has refused, failed and/or neglected to pull down, erase/remove the said publication/post, to issue an unconditional and unqualified apology through the same forum and/or his Facebook page/Account, despite having been served with a demand letter. 11. According to the Petitioner, she is entitled to protection and benefit as enshrined under **Article 20(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010** and that this Honorable Court has jurisdiction to grant "an appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights, a conservatory order, an injunction, a declaration of the invalidity of a law and an order for compensation in terms of **Article 23(3) (a-e) of the Constitution.** **Respondent’s Case** 1. In opposing the petition, the Respondent filed a Replying affidavit dated 17th October 2025. He deposed that the Petition is bad in law, incompetent, mischievous, frivolous, and misleading, full of falsehood, is an afterthought, an abuse of the court's process and ought to be struck out in the first instance. 2. The Respondent deniedever publishing, authoring, posting, or disseminating the alleged defamatory material referred to in the said application or any other material concerning the petition herein whatsoever. The Respondent maintained that he is not the owner, creator, administrator or user of the Facebook account that is the subject of the Petitioner's complaint, nor does he have access or control over the said account. 3. The Respondent maintained that he has never any time posted or authorized any post targeting or referring to the Petitioner on any platform, including Facebook, and the claim that he is responsible for the impugned post is false, speculative, and unsubstantiated. He further contended that the petition is misdirected as it seeks orders against a person who is not the author or publisher of the alleged defamatory content and who has no ability or control over a third-party account. 4. The respondent further deposed that in support of his denial of ownership, control or administration of the said Facebook account, he has obtained a screenshot of the page Transparency Information for the Facebook Page bearing the name "Gen Chepkuley" which clearly demonstrates that: the said Facebook Page was Originally created on 14th June 2021 under the name "Hon Veska Kangogo Foundation"; 5. That the Page subsequently underwent several name changes as follows: changed to "Obadia Mibey" on 26th March 2022; changed to "Gen C Chepkuley" on 7th September 2022 and changed to "Gen Chepkuley" on 30th December 2024; that he did not create the said Page, nor did he authorize its creation or any subsequent name changes; that the multiple name changes demonstrate a clear pattern of manipulation and potential impersonation by unknown third parties; and that he has never at any time had administrative access, control, or any connection whatsoever to the said Facebook page or any of its previous iterations. 6. Further, the Respondent urged that the Petition is untenable for reasons that**:** the petition offends the doctrine of constitutional avoidance by seeking application of the constitution to matters fully and adequately addressed by statute, that all the issues raised in the Petition ought to be adjudicated under the **Defamation Act, Cap 36 of the Laws of Kenya** through a normal suit initiated through a Plaint under the Rules of Procedure of the High Court. 7. That the Petition does not meet the legal threshold on what constitutes a constitutional petition is in as far as the petitioner alleges the violation of his rights and fundamental freedoms under the bill of rights and that the proceedings are offensive to the doctrine of exhaustion in so far as the matters raised are largely complaints within the meaning of the **Data Protection Act, 2019**, the determination of which lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Data Commissioner and that in this regard, the Petitioner has completely failed to establish the requisite legal threshold for grant of any relief sought in any way whatsoever. **Submissions** 1. The Petition was canvassed vide written submissions. Both parties filed their respective submissions. **Petitioner’s Submission** 1. Counsel for the Petitioner asserts that the petition meets the legal requirements for a constitutional petition under **Rule 10(2)** of the "**Mutunga Rules".** It is argued that the petition concisely details the Petitioner’s identity, the specific facts of the case, the constitutional provisions violated, the resulting injuries, and the requested relief. He relied on the case of Anarita **Karimi Njeru v Republic** where the court stated that a Petitioner must set out their complaint with a "reasonable degree of precision," specifically naming the constitutional provisions infringed and the manner of infringement. 2. He also relied on **Rule 4(1)** and **Rule 10** of the **Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013** being the **“Mutunga Rules** “herein referred towhich empower the High Court to hear applications regarding threatened or violated freedoms. 3. Counsel submitted that the Respondent Violated **Articles 28 (right human dignity) and 31 (right to privacy)** of the Constitution of Kenya in publishing the Petitioner’s photograph. Citing the case of TOS**v Maseno University & 3 Others [2016] eKLR,** Counsel asserts that using an individual's image without consent is a violation because a person’s life is a "restricted realm" where they alone decide who may enter. 4. Counsel contended that the release of the Petitioner's private phone number is a violation of privacy; the Petitioner's phone was subjected to spam texts and calls, including threats to life after the Respondent invited the public to contact her. Counsel added that an individual's telephone number is private information which can only be disclosed within the accepted parameters of the law. Counsel relied on the case of **Hogin v Cottingham** an d the case of[**Francis Mulomba Nguyo v Nation Media Group Limited & 2 others [2021] [2021] KEHC 3888 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2021/3888/eng%402021-09-22) 1. Counsel cited **Section 26 of the Data Protection Act**, on the rights of data subject. He argued that the Petitioner’s data rights were violated because she was **"never informed"** that her picture had been obtained and was perturbed to see it publicized in a **"defamatory post."** Regarding the unlawful use of image, Counsel submitted that based on [**Wanjiru v Davinci Aesthetics & Reconstruction Centre & 2 others [2017] KEHC 9230 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2017/9230/eng%402017-09-21)a Petitioner must establish three elements being use of a Protected Attribute; Use of a plaintiff’s name, likeness, or identity, exploitative Purpose; Use for commercial or other exploitative purposes, intended to lower a reputation and no Consent; The plaintiff must establish they did not give permission. 2. Counsel urged that in this specific instance, the Petitioner’s photograph, likeness, and image (annexed to the petition) constitutes the protected attribute and that the Petitioner is "clearly identifiable" because the likeness and photograph are "clear and conspicuous". Counsel further urged that the Petitioner’s photo was used exploitatively with the specific intent of "destroying the Petitioner’s business and that the use was intended to "lower her reputation before the eyes of the right-thinking member of society. Counsel also maintained that the Petitioner did not consent to the use of her image/photograph. He also added that Respondent has not challenged this lack of consent. 3. On the issue of the compensation sought, Counsel cited **Article 23(3) of the Constitution** and **Section 65(1) of the Data Protection Act, 2019.** Counsel urged that the Petitioner is entitled to compensation for intrusion of her constitutional right to privacy and human dignity. Counsel further submitted that the Respondent’s publication of the Petitioner’s photographs was defamatory. He relied on the case of [**Musikari Kombo v Royal Media Services Limited [2018] KECA 801 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/801/eng%402018-02-09)and the case of **SMW v ZWM (2015) eKLR.** 4. Counsel further submitted that all elements of defamation have been met in this specific instance; that the Petitioner produced the defamatory publication as evidence, the statement referred to the Petitioner as a "con lady of Upront agency," which in its ordinary meaning is false and defamatory, the statement refers to Lucy Chemutai, who is the Petitioner and that the statement refers to her role at "Upront"; she produced a CR12 (Exhibit LCT 5) to prove she is indeed the director of Upront Agency. 5. Counsel added that the Petitioner herein having established violation of her constitutional right to privacy, human dignity has established constitutional torts and she is entitled to compensation and relied on the case of [**John Atelu Omilia & another v Attorney General & 4 others [2017] KEHC 8784 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2017/8784/eng%402017-05-19)in this regard. 6. On the issue of quantum, Counsel submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to a global sum of Kshs. 10,000,000 for the violation of privacy, human dignity, and data rights. He relied of the case of [**Joel Mutuma Kirimi & another v National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) [2020] KEHC 8542 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2020/8542/eng%402020-02-06)where the court awarded Kshs.5,000,000 per plaintiff for breaches of dignity and privacy, [**GSN v Nairobi Hospital & 2 others [2020] KEHC 3373 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2020/3373/eng%402020-07-30)where Kshs.2,000,000 was awarded for a breach of the right to privacy, [**Dhabiti Sacco Ltd v Sharon Nyaga [2022] KEHC 2252 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2022/2252/eng%402022-02-21) where the court awarded Kshs.1,500,000 specifically for the unauthorized publication of a picture in a calendar and [**MWK & another v Attorney General & 4 others; Independent Medical Legal Unit (IMLU) (Interested Party); The Redress Trust (Amicus Curiae) [2017] KEHC 1496 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2017/1496/eng%402017-12-18)where Justice Mativo awarded Kshs. 4,000,000 for violations of dignity, privacy, and degrading treatment. Counsel also relied on **Section 63 of the Data Protection Act**, noting that the Data Commissioner can impose penalties of up to Kshs. 5,000,000 for infringements. 7. Counsel also seeks an additional sum of Kshs. 5,000,000 specifically for defamation. He relied on the case of [**Aziz Kassim Lakha v Standard Limited T/A East African Standard [2009] KECA 426 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2009/426/eng%402009-10-16)**.** Counsel contended that the Respondent was served with a demand letter (exhibit LCT 6) but never issued an apology nor pulled down the post until a court order was issued directing the deletion. He also contended that the Respondent made no efforts to mitigate the damages caused by the publication/post. Counsel pointed out that the post was shared via Facebook, receiving approximately **1.4k likes and comments** and being shared 6 times, resulting in wide circulation and a wider audience. He relied on the case of **Joseph Njoroge Kamunge vs. Charles Muriuki Gachari [2016] eKLR,** 8. On the issue of costs of the Petition, Counsel urged the Court to exercise its discretion to award costs to the successful party, citing **Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act** and the principle that "costs follow the event". **The Respondent’s Submissions** 1. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petition herein as framed does not disclose a genuine constitutional cause of action and is instead an ordinary Defamation claim dressed in Constitutional Garb. He submitted that the Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance is firmly entrenched in Kenyan jurisprudence. He cited the case of Mumo **Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others [2013] eKLR**, where the Court of Appeal held that the Constitution ought not to be invoked where statute provides an adequate remedy, and that a court should prefer a non-constitutional ground of decision where one is available. 2. Counsel further submitted that the allegations herein, defamatory publications on Facebook and invasion of privacy, are comprehensively addressed by existing statute. Counsel pointed out that Defamation by written word (libel): is actionable under the **Defamation Act, Cap 36, Laws of Kenya**, through an ordinary civil suit by way of Plaint, that online harassment, cyberbullying, and publication of false information are addressed under **Sections 22 to 27 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, No. 5 of 2018** and that privacy complaints: Touching on personal data processing fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Data Protection Commissioner under the **Data Protection Act, No. 24 of 2019**. 3. Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court of Kenya in **Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 Others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others [2014] eKLR** affirmed that courts must guard against the improper constitutionalisation of matters that can be resolved through ordinary civil or statutory mechanisms and urged that by lodging a Constitutional Petition where the **Defamation Act, Cap 36** provides a clear and complete remedy, the Petitioner has improperly invoked the Constitution. In addition, Counsel argued that a petition must meet the threshold set out in **Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (No. 1) [1979] KLR 154**, which requires that the constitutional issue be stated with sufficient precision and clarity so that both the opposing party and the Court can understand and engage with it. 4. In this regard, it is the view of Counsel, that the Petitioner has failed to identify, with the required specificity, which constitutional provision has been violated and how the conduct of the Respondent, as opposed to an unknown third party, constitutes such a violation. Counsel maintained that the Petition is therefore not properly constituted as a constitutional petition and ought to be struck out. 5. Regarding the burden of proof, Counsel submitted that the entire Petition is founded on a fundamental and fatal error of fact which is that the Respondent is the owner, author, or administrator of the Facebook Account styled "Gen Chepkuley." Counsel added that this assertion is categorically denied and is wholly unsupported by any credible evidence. Counsel maintained that the burden of establishing the Respondent's connection to the impugned Account lies squarely with the Petitioner. 6. Counsel further submitted that the standard of proof in civil and constitutional proceedings is on a balance of probabilities. He cited the case of Diana **Kethi Kilonzo & Another v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 10 Others [2014] eKLR** and the case of **Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR** and submitted that the Petitioner has adduced no forensic report, no IP address attribution, no Meta/Facebook administrative records, no digital evidence of any kind, and no credible witness testimony linking the Respondent to the account. 7. Counsel argued that conversely, the Respondent has adduced positive documentary evidence, Annexure CL-2 (Facebook Page Transparency information), which demonstrates: the Page was created on 14th June 2021 as "Hon Veska Kangogo Foundation", it was subsequently renamed to "Obadia Mibey" (26th March 2022), "Gen C Chepkuley" (7th September 2022), and "Gen Chepkuley" (30th December 2024) and that the Respondent had no role in the creation or name changes, which are consistent with manipulation and impersonation by unknown third parties. 8. In this regard, Counsel relied on the case of **John Harun Mwau v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 Others [2017] eKLR** and urgedthat the Petitioner's case rests entirely on conjecture which is the assertion that because the Page bears a name similar to the Respondent's alias, the Respondent must be responsible. Counsel urged that this is not proof but is speculation and speculation cannot found a constitutional claim. 9. Regarding the reliefs sought, Counsel submitted that in the event this Honorable Court were to find that the Petition is properly constituted and that the Petitioner has established the Respondent's connection to the Account, the Petitioner has still failed to establish the requisite threshold for the grant of any of the reliefs sought and submitted that in **Petition No. 290 of 2015,** **Githunguri Dairy Farmers Cooperative Society Limited v Dairyboard Kenya Limited & Another,** the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that there must be a clear nexus between the conduct complained of, the named Respondent, and the specific constitutional violation alleged. A Petitioner must go beyond mere averment and demonstrate, through evidence, that the conditions for the grant of the relief have been satisfied. Counsel argued that no such demonstration has been made in this matter. 10. Counsel maintained that the Doctrine of Exhaustion further bars the grant of relief and observed that in the case of **Geoffrey Muthinja Kabiru & 2 Others v Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 Others [2015] eKLR**, the Court of Appeal held that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside the Courts, a party must first resort to that mechanism before approaching the High Court by way of petition. Counsel further submitted that the principle was similarly stated in **Speaker of the National Assembly & Another v Karume [1992] KLR 21,** where the Court held that where there is a clear procedure for the redress of a grievance, that procedure must be strictly followed. 11. Counsel therefore urged that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she lodged any complaint with the Data Protection Commissioner, reported the matter to the relevant authorities under the **Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018**, or took any steps to pursue relief under the **Defamation Act, Cap 36** prior to filing this Petition. Counsel added that the failure to exhaust these remedies renders the Petition premature and the reliefs sought incompetent, frivolous and vexatious. 12. He noted that in the case of **Dickson Mwenda Kithinji v Moses Kuria & Others [2015] eKLR,** the High Court struck out a petition founded on speculation and unsupported allegations, holding that the constitutional petition process ought not to be weaponized against a party without a proper evidentiary foundation and urged the court to find that the present Petition is precisely such a petition, and that it is misconceived, mischievous, and brought in bad faith against a party who has no connection to the alleged wrong and no ability to control a third-party Account. Counsel prayed that it ought to be dismissed with costs. **Determination** 1. Having considered the pleadings as well as the parties’ rival submissions on the two prominent issues being that the Petitioner in a nutshell invites the court to find that the Respondent herein breached her right to privacy, security and human dignity by publishing her photographs without her express consent whereas the Respondent on the other hand has urged that the instant Petitioner is improperly before this Court as it offends the doctrine of avoidance and exhaustion, it is my considered opinion that the following issues arise for determination; 2. **Whether the Petition offends the doctrine of avoidance.** 3. **Whether the orders sought should be granted.** 4. It is trite that a constitutional petition must from the onset raise a constitutional question for determination by the court so that the powers vested in the High Court under **Article 165 of the**[**Constitution**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution) are not unnecessarily stretched based on the wide scope of application of the Bill of Rights. It is also imperative for a party seeking constitutional reliefs to demonstrate that a constitutional court is the only forum in which his/her grievances can be addressed. 5. The doctrine of constitutional avoidance is well-established in Kenyan jurisprudence. It posits that where a dispute can be resolved on another basis, whether statutory, contractual, or under internal organizational regulations, courts should refrain from unnecessarily invoking the [Constitution](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution). 6. In [**Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others vs. Royal Media Services Ltd & 5 Others**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2014/53)**[2014] eKLR**, the Supreme Court affirmed that not every dispute should to be elevated into a constitutional question. The Court rendered itself thus; **“[105].We shall now turn to the Constitutional-Avoidance Doctrine. The doctrine is at times referred to as the Constitutional-Avoidance Rule. *Black’s Law Dictionary*, 10th Edition at page 377 defines it as: -“The doctrine that a case should not be resolved by deciding a constitutional question if it can be resolved in some other fashion”** **[106].The doctrine interrogates whether there are other ways of resolving a dispute outside a constitutional petition.** **[256]…The principle of avoidance entails that a Court will not determine a constitutional issue, when a matter may properly be decided on another basis.”** 1. In **Faraj & 3 others v Police & 2 others [2022] KEHC 287 (KLR)** the Court held that; …**the doctrine of ripeness and the doctrine of avoidance. Like res judicata or the doctrine of exhaustion, these two doctrines can preclude a court from entertaining a case. Constitutional avoidance has been defined as a preference for deciding a case on any basis other than one which involves a constitutional issue being resolved. As a principle, constitutional avoidance has been linked to the doctrine of justiciability. In broad terms, justiciability governs the limitations on the constitutional arguments that the courts will entertain. It encompasses three main principles: standing, ripeness, and mootness. The avoidance doctrine was fortified in Sports and Recreation Commission v Sagittarius Wrestling Club and Anor.** 1. Applying the established legal principles to the instant Petition, it is evident that the core of the dispute revolves around three specific causes of action: defamation via a Facebook publication, cyberbullying, and an alleged breach of data privacy. 2. While the Petitioner seeks constitutional or high-level judicial intervention, a closer examination of the pleadings reveals that the nature of these grievances falls under particular and legal frameworks that are available to any aggrieved party. 3. The allegation of defamation through social media is a civil wrong (tort) governed by the **Defamation Act.** Such disputes are traditionally and most effectively resolved through a civil suit in the Magistrate’s Courts or the High Court (Civil Division), where the court can assess the veracity of the statements and quantify damages. 4. The claim of cyberbullying falls squarely within the ambit of the **Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act**. This legislation provides a specific mechanism for reporting, investigating, and prosecuting online harassment. The appropriate "port of call" for these allegations is the specialized cybercrime unit within the police service or the relevant regulatory bodies tasked with overseeing digital conduct. 5. On the alleged violation of the Petitioner’s data privacy, the **Data Protection Act** provides a comprehensive framework for redress. The Act establishes the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC) as the primary body for lodging complaints related to the unauthorized processing or disclosure of personal data. 6. The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the existing statutory provisions and administrative mechanisms were either exhausted or proved to be inadequate, ineffective, or unavailable. By framing the grievance as a constitutional petition centered on the rights to privacy, security, and human dignity, the Petitioner seeks to bypass already established procedures. 7. This court maintains that while constitutional rights are paramount, courts must resist expanding constitutional jurisdiction into domains governed by specialized internal remedies and applicable statutory provisions that are available for redress. 8. The instant Petition thus offends the doctrine of constitutional avoidance for reasons that the Petitioner has bypassed the doctrine of exhaustionwhich dictates that a party must first seek redress in the forums specifically designed to handle such matters before approaching this Court. 9. This being the case, I am satisfied that the Petition is prematurely before this court. It is misconceived and accordingly it is now hereby struck out. In light of the court’s finding that the Petitioner has approached the court through the wrong forum and her case has not been determined on its merits, I direct that each party is to bear their own costs. **Read Dated and Signed Virtually at BUNGOMA on 9th July 2026** **E. OMINDE** **JUDGE**