By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

It seems that this issue once decided, then whoever has been seen to have the rightto be heard during the application for leave will necessarily have that right in theapplication for the prerogative orders. The position is not so for all cases. Locus standican be raised as an issue during the preliminary stage in the application for leave. At thatearly stage the Court may find, in simple cases, that an applicants for judicial review hasno right of being heard, he has no standing, as it were.These are the kind of people who have no interest at all, at they have no sufficient interestto support their claim. It will in these circumstances, be correct at the threshold, to refuseleave to apply. In cases that involve complex issue, the question of sufficiency of interesthas to be considered together with the legal and factual context of the application.If the application for the pregative orders is made, the question of locus standi will thenbe determined regarding those who passed the test at the threshold stage; Those who canestablish that indeed they had a grievance. So, although public – spirited land ownersmay succeed in an application for or leave on behalf of al larger a group they may not ofnecessity succeed at the stage of the application for those orders if they cannot establishtheir right of standing. In view of the foregoing observations I am satisfied that theapplicants have established a sufficient interest to be able to apply for leave. The secondobjection would accordingly fail.As to the third preliminary objection, that this is an unfit case to be dete-mined byway of judicial review, one may say right from the outset that the answer resides in thepurpose for which prohibition and mandamus is all about.Before I go to that stage. I will revisit submissions by learned counsel. Mr. Werema hassubmitted that the application considered in the light of the first applicant’s affidavit,concerns a matter that may not be decided by way of judicial review. He refers to thosewho will be compensated and that the latter group are already made aware of theGovernment decision in their favour.I understand him to mean that although such people may have grievances, they can get aremedy in private law in the nature of a civil process rather than by way of a public lawremedy through judicial review. Indeed, he went on to say that appears to be the positionbecause none of the applicants opposed the road expansion object.That they claim compensation which may be paid even the works have been executed.Professor Fimbo did address his issue especially emphassing the point that his clients areprovided to a remedy because their property in the suit land will appropriated by theGovernment. So that the Government should prevailed upon by way of an order ofprohibition until the sensation is paid, and an order or mandamus to compel the affirmedto any compensation.237