The court held that the core issue was whether the High Court's jurisdiction was ousted by the existence of alternative remedies under sections 15 and 88 of the County Government Act. The court found that the petition challenged the constitutionality of the Lamu County Finance Act 2016, specifically regarding the levying of cess on soil, which is a matter of constitutional interpretation. The court determined that neither the County Assembly nor the County Government has the authority to decide on the constitutionality of county legislation; such jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the High Court under Article 165 of the Constitution. The court further found that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply where the alternative mechanisms do not provide for constitutional interpretation. The court also noted that the parties had already engaged in correspondence over the dispute, and it would be improper for the Respondent to challenge jurisdiction after the fact. Consequently, the preliminary objection was dismissed for lack of merit.