R.M v ATTORNEY GENERAL & 4 others [2010] eKLR For a party to have locus standi in a suit, he ought to show that his own interest particularly has been prejudiced or is about to be prejudiced. He must show that the matter has injured him over and above the injury, loss or prejudice suffered by the rest of the public. Otherwise public interests are litigated upon by the Attorney-General.” 28. It was submitted that the matter before the court is public interest litigation. Thus the court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction should give the issue of locus standi a broad interpretation. Reliance was placed on the case of Lemeiguran & 3 Others –Vs- Attorney General & 2 Others (2008) 3 KLR (EP) 325 wherein Nyamu J. (as he then was) and Emukule J. held inter alia that“A generous and purposive interpretation is to be given to constitutional provisions protecting human rights while carefully considering the language used in the Constitution. The court had a responsibility to interpret the Constitution in a manner that protected and enhanced the right of minorities and other disadvantaged group 29. It was submitted that this court should not be bogged down unnecessarily on issues of locus standi in Constitutional matters, such as the one before the court. The court was urged to be proactive in embracing the rights of intersexuals by giving them legal recognition. Since there were no Kenyan precedents on the subject, the court was urged to apply international standards and grant the orders sought. 30. It was also contended that due to lack of legal recognition the petitioner’s right to vote as enshrined under Section 34 of the Constitution was violated. It was argued that without a Birth Certificate, the petitioner cannot obtain a national identity card which is a requisite document before one is registered as a voter. That in the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be registered in any constituency as a voter, or vie for any political seat, or vote for anyone else. Thus the petitioner is disenfranchised on account of his intersex status. It was pointed out that lack of legal recognition contravenes Article 21(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which reads:“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” 31. It was argued that because of this lack of legal recognition the petitioner and others like him cannot enjoy the right to housing, or the right to acquire property contrary to Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That the petitioner and others like him, cannot acquire a Personal Identification Number (PIN), resulting in economic incapacity. In essence, it was argued that intersex persons as a minority group lack legal recognition, and that lack of recognition in all its forms runs counter to the provisions and spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 32. It was also argued that due to lack of legal recognition of intersex persons, the petitioner cannot get employment. This is because he cannot be employed without a national identity card, which he can only get if he has a birth certificate. Yet an intersex child cannot get a birth certificate because he is neither male nor female. The petitioner and other intersex persons cannot also attain academic qualifications due to the social stigma they face in school and the fact that they cannot access examination registration forms. Thus contrary to Article 23(1) of the Unilateral Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees every person the right to work, the freedom to choose employment and the http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 11/45