| Authority | High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) — Civil Division |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Kenya |
| Relevant law | Data Protection Act, 2019: ss. 56(5), 64; Data Protection (Complaints Handling Procedure and Enforcement) Regulations, 2021: regs. 14(1), 14(3); Civil Procedure Act: ss. 79G, 95; Civil Procedure Rules: Order 42 Rule 6(2), Order 50 Rule 6 |
| Type | Appeal / Review — Procedural Ruling (Stay of Execution + Extension of Time) |
| Outcome | Applications allowed; Preliminary Objection dismissed |
| Started | 3 March 2025 (Memorandum of Appeal filed) |
| Decided | 11 July 2025 |
| Published | Yes |
| Fine | KES 650,000 (underlying ODPC award — stayed pending appeal) |
| Parties | Kenya Breweries Limited (Appellant) vs. Joseph Gathiru Muriithi (Respondent); Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (Interested Party) |
| Case No. | [2025] KEHC 9990 (KLR) — Civil Appeal E267 of 2025 |
| Underlying ODPC Case | ODPC Complaint No. 1805 of 2024 — determined 3 February 2025 |
| Appeal | Substantive appeal pending before the High Court |
| Original Source | Kenya Law Reports |
| Original Contributor | MZIZI Africa |
Kenya Breweries Limited appealed an ODPC determination awarding KES 650,000 to a complainant. A filing delay caused by the Judiciary's e-portal system failure led to a two-day lapse. The High Court granted extension of time, dismissed the respondent's preliminary objection, and stayed execution of the ODPC award on condition of depositing KES 650,000 in court within 21 days.
The underlying complaint, ODPC Complaint No. 1805 of 2024, was determined by the Data Commissioner on 3 February 2025, with an award of KES 650,000 in favour of the respondent, Joseph Gathiru Muriithi. The nature of the underlying data protection violation is not detailed in this ruling, which concerns only the procedural questions of extension of time and stay of execution pending appeal. The ODPC subsequently issued an Enforcement Notice on 27 February 2025 arising from the same determination.
Kenya Breweries Limited sought to appeal the determination under section 64 of the Data Protection Act, 2019. It filed a Memorandum of Appeal on 3 March 2025, two days after the expiry of the 30-day statutory period under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicant attributed the delay entirely to a failure in the Judiciary's e-filing portal, which accepted the documents for upload but could not complete the process. Counsel deposed that attempts to upload ran until 19:51 hours on the deadline day, after which a written report was immediately made to the Deputy Registrar. The Court responded on 5 May 2025 advising engagement with the ICT Officer. The application for extension of time was filed the following day.
The respondent challenged both the application for extension of time and the application for stay of execution through a Notice of Preliminary Objection, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was filed out of time without prior leave, rendering both the appeal and accompanying applications fatally defective. The respondent also argued that the quest for a stay of the publication of the determination had been overtaken by events, as the determination was already in the public domain, and that the Applicant had voluntarily participated in ODPC proceedings without raising any jurisdictional contest before the Interested Party.
The High Court (Mrima J) dismissed the Preliminary Objection, finding that none of its grounds constituted a valid preliminary objection in law as they all required interrogation of evidence and involved discretionary remedies. On extension of time, the court applied the principles in Salat v IEBC [2014] KESC 12 (KLR) and found the two-day delay attributable to a system failure outside the Applicant's control, satisfactorily explained, and not inordinate. On stay of execution, the court applied Order 42 Rule 6(2) and the principles in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal [1979] KECA 22 (KLR), finding the conditions for stay satisfied — including the Applicant's unexplained concern about the respondent's ability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded — and conditionally granted the stay upon deposit of KES 650,000 in court within 21 days, in default of which execution to issue.
Note: the substantive appeal on the merits of the underlying ODPC determination remains pending before the High Court