By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

law. The present application falls under the second category where an Beforeproceeding to consideration of these matters, something more needs to be saidabout the threshold requirement of sufficient interest.The courts in exercising the power to grant prerogative writs, or, since 1938,prerogative orders, have always received the right to be satisfied that the applicanthad some genuine locus standi to appear before it.This they expressed in different ways. Sometimes it was said, usually in relationsto certiorari, that the applicant must be a person aggrieved or having a particulargrievance..; usually in relation to mandamus, that he must have a specific legalright…; sometimes that he must have a sufficient interest….By 1977 when R.S.C,Order 53 was introduced, the courts, guided by Lord Parker, C.J., in cases wheremandamus was sought, were moving away from the Lewisham Union test ofspecific legal right, to one of sufficient interest..”Lord Diplock shared the same views with Lord Wilberforce as can be seen frompage 636 to 642. Lord Scarman said this, at page 653:-“The interestThe sufficiency of the interest is as I understand all your Lordships agree,a mixed question of law and fact..The one legal principle, which is implicit in the case law and accuratelyreflected in the rules of court, is that in determining the sufficiency of an applicant’sinterest it is necessary to consider the matter to which the application related. It is wrongin law, as I understand the cases, for the court to attempt an assessment of the sufficiencyof the applicant’s interest without regard to the matter of his complaint.If he fails to show, when he applied for leave, a prima facie case, or reasonable groundsfor believing that there has been failure of public duty, the court would be in error if itgranted leave. The curb represented by the need for an applicant to show, when he seeksleave to apply, that he has such a case is an essential protection against abuse o legalprocess. It enables the court to prevent abuse by busybodies, cranks, and other mischief –makers…”Hence, whether or not sufficiency of interest has been established is a matter thatis within the discretion of the Court. The natural question that flows from theseconsiderations is, therefore, whether the applicants or any of them have establishedsufficient interest.I am satisfied that they have done so. Firstly, there is the first applicant whose claim issufficiently detailed in his affidavit. Secondly, there are those Mr. Werema has admittedare entitled to compensation. All these have a right to be heard in pursuit of their rights. Itappears that there may be some confusion that hovers around the issue of locus standi236