Republic v Tools for Humanity Corporation (US) & 8 others; Katiba Institute & 4 others (Applicant); Data Privacy & Governance Society of Kenya (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application E119 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 16829 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (14 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 16829 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION E119 OF 2023 RE ABURILI, J NOVEMBER 14, 2025 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ................................................................................................. APPLICANT AND TOOLS FOR HUMANITY CORPORATION (US) .................... 1ST RESPONDENT TOOLS FOR HUMANITY GMBH ............................................. 2ND RESPONDENT WORLDCOIN FOUNDATION (CAYMAN ISLANDS) ............ 3RD RESPONDENT WORLD ASSETS LIMITED BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS ...... 4TH RESPONDENT PLATINUM DE PLUS LTD .......................................................... 5TH RESPONDENT DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER .................................. 6TH RESPONDENT CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY ............................................... 7TH RESPONDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY ......................................... 8TH RESPONDENT CENTRAL BANK OF KENYA .................................................... 9TH RESPONDENT AND KATIBA INSTITUTE .............................................................................. APPLICANT LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA .................................................................... APPLICANT KENYA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ......................................... APPLICANT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS (KENYA) .............. APPLICANT https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16829/eng@2025-11-14 1
page 1 of 2
AFRICAN CENTER FOR OPEN GOVERNANCE ............................. APPLICANT AND DATA PRIVACY & GOVERNANCE SOCIETY OF KENYA .... INTERESTED PARTY RULING 1. The applicant Data Protection Commissioner in the application dated 11/9/2025 seeks leave of court to withdraw the said application with no orders as to costs on account that it did supervise and confirm the deletion of all data as directed by the Court. The Respondents have no objection. 2. However, Mr. Odanga for the exparte applicants seeks an affidavit to proof that the data was deleted. The affidavit, in my view, would not be proof of deletion of data. In the application, the applicant had simply sought extension of time for supervision of deletion of data. The court had initially given 7 days. However, because the data was in Germany, the applicant travelled to Germany and supervised the data deletion and has informed the court of such deletion. 3. All the court needs is a written confirmation, for record purposes and for posterity that such data was deleted, noting that the applicant is the sole national regulator who must act in the public interest at all times, as was the case in this matter. 4. Therefore, this court cannot hold onto the application which sought for extension of time to supervise the exercise yet the application has been overtaken by events of the applicant Office of the Data Protection Commissioner having fully supervised the data deletion. 5. Accordingly, this court allows the request for withdrawal of the application dated 11/9/2025 with no orders as to costs but directs the applicant to file into court a written communication which will also be issued to the general public, within the next seven days, informing the public that it supervised the subject’s data deletion. 6. I so order and close this file. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 R.E. ABURILI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16829/eng@2025-11-14 2
page 2 of 2