The High Court's data protection jurisdiction is "staggered," not absent

A plaintiff sued Safaricom directly, alleging it had launched a financial product substantially identical to one he had developed and shared with the company, in violation of his data protection rights. Safaricom's preliminary objection argued the High Court lacked jurisdiction entirely, since data protection claims sit exclusively with the ODPC. The Court rejected that framing as "mistaken and misconceived": the High Court does have jurisdiction over data protection claims, but that jurisdiction is deferred, or staggered — the ODPC investigates and determines first, and the High Court's role follows, either on appeal or by adoption and enforcement of the resulting award. On the facts, the suit was struck out because the plaintiff had not gone to the ODPC first.