Republic v The Office of Data Protection Commissioner

for time to file a response. 7 days were granted, and the matter was fixed for 21st July 2026, for oral hearing. 4. When the matter came up on 21st July 2026, Mr. Oyare indicated that he had not managed to file his response, an affidavit, and asked for 2 more days. I declined to accede to that, given that a reply or response need not be in affidavit form, for grounds of opposition would, in cases such as these, for extension of time to do something, suffice. I granted Mr. Oyare some 10 or so minutes to prepare to argue the matter. 5. I took oral arguments. Mr. Wanjiru, for the respondent, pleaded for the a 30-day extension, on the basis that certain administrative challenges, presented by the 1st and 2nd interested parties, contributed to the delay. Mr. Kioko supported the application. Mr. Oyare submitted that the interested parties would be prejudiced, and an extension would not meet their legitimate expectations. 6. The principal dispute herein, in respect of which the extension of time, is sought, is between the ex parte applicants and the interested parties. The role of the respondent, in the whole affair, is that of an umpire. It should be both the ex parte applicants and the interested parties who would suffer prejudice and who have legitimate expectations. Justice should be delivered to both of them by the respondent. 7. The prejudice, to be suffered by the 1st and 2nd interested parties, alleged by Mr. Oyare, was not elaborated or demonstrated, and, in my view, if any prejudice is to be suffered, it would be by both the ex parte applicants and the interested parties, for the ex parte applicants do not stand to benefit in anyway from the extension, in a manner that would jeopardise the position of the interested parties. At the end of it, both would have their day before the respondent. 8. The issue raised, by the 1st and 2nd interested parties, about another or fresh complaint file being opened, appears to me to be wholly an administrative matter, which should not be prejudicial to either party, so long as the material in the new file is the same as that was in the old file, that is ODPC Complaint No. E0285 of 2025. It would the old complaint, in substance, placed in a new file. 9. I am invited to extend the period fixed by Aburili J, and not that fixed in section 56(5) of the Data Protection Act, Cap. 411C, Laws of Kenya. I would have jurisdiction, to extend a period or duration fixed by a fellow Judge, in exercise of discretion or inherent power. 10. I am persuaded that there is merit, in the application, dated 3rd July 2026, and I hereby allow it, in terms of prayer 2 thereof. I believe that this cause is now exhausted, and I hereby direct that the instant file be closed. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED VIA CTS, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY 2026. W MUSYOKA JUDGE Mr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant. Advocates Mr. Kioko, instructed by WNK Advocates LLP, Advocates for the ex parte applicants. Ms. Wanjiru, instructed by the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, the respondent. Mr. Oyare, instructed by Dentons Hamilton Harrison & Mathews, Advocates for the 1st and 2nd interested parties. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11088/eng@2026-07-21 2

page 2 of 2