The Petitioner’s Rejoinder 32. In reply to the submissions by the respondents, Mr. Amoko submitted that KBC is allowing Multi Choice to provide public subscription services while locking out the petitioner from the market; and that CCK has ignored its clear statutory obligations as the petitioner has been applying for and been denied a chance to compete on the digital platform. 33. To the challenge to its capacity to bring this petition as the licences it has annexed are in the names of other companies, Mr. Amoko submitted that the petitioner has capacity as all the letters indicate that the applicants are all part of the Wananchi Group. 34. With regard to the letter from the Minister dated 28 th of February 2008 on the basis of which KBC contends that it has authority to operate as a signal distributor, Mr. Amoko submitted that the letter was subject to a licence; that KBC is operating without a licence; that the Act did not make exceptions or permit new entrants to the broadcast market to be treated differently, and so permitting KBC to operate without a licence had led to a violation of the petitioner’s rights. 35. The petitioner asserts that the cases in which there are stay orders on the basis of which CCK contends that it cannot issue licences do not apply to broadcasting signals, and if they do, KBC should not be exempt. 36. It maintains however, that the cases have nothing to do with the issues now before the court; that the petitioner’s problems with CCK with regard to the digital broadcasting predate the cases which are in court, which were instituted in November, 2011; that the interim orders granted in those proceedings have nothing to do with broadcasting on the digital platform nor do they address and have anything to do with broadcasting signal distribution; that in the Media owners case, the interim orders are intended to stop interference with existing licences and frequencies of the petitioners; while the orders in the Magic Radio case are directed at a specific public notice on the licensing of new broadcasting. 37. On the question of jurisdiction and the availability of an alternative remedy, the petitioner took the position that the cases relied on by the respondents do not apply to constitutional petitions but to judicial review matters, but that in any event, the dispute in this case cannot go to the Tribunal as it is a legal issue best dealt with by the High Court. Analysis and Determination 38. From the pleadings and submissions of the parties in this matter, two main issues arise for determination: (i) Whether this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner'sclaim. (ii) Whether the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Articles 27, 33 and 34(1) of the Constitution have been violated. Jurisdiction 39. It is, I believe, well settled that when an issue with regard to the court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter is raised, it is incumbent on the court to deal with the question of jurisdiction first, before addressing its mind further to the matters in issue. As Nyarangi JA observed in Owners of Motor Vessel ‘Lillian S’ –vsCaltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR 109;