R.M v ATTORNEY GENERAL & 4 others [2010] eKLR seeks the unconditional acquittal of the petitioner. That prayer cannot be divorced from the main petition as it is being pursued as a logical consequence of the alleged breach of fundamental rights. 99. In Lemeiguran & 3 others vs Attorney General & 2 others, (Il Chamus Case)Nyamu and Emukule JJ considering a similar situation noted that as the main application in that case was a constitutional application, judicial review issues ought to have been ventilated under the umbrella of the constitutional application. We concur with this position and reject the submission that the petition before us is incompetent for invoking a “hybrid” constitutional and judicial review jurisdiction. We are satisfied that the petition before this court is properly before us for determination of fundamental rights and freedoms, and violation or threatened violation of such rights and freedoms. ISSUE OF LOCUS STANDI 100. Further, the Constitutional and Judicial Review Jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction. Apart from the procedure provided under Order LIII of the Civil Procedure Rules which applies to application for Judicial Review, the proceedings of the High Court in relation to constitutional application are governed by the rules made by the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 65(3) and Section 84(6) of the Constitution. Therefore, Order I rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring leave for representative suits does not apply to Constitutional and judicial review applications. 101. In this case, the petitioner has brought the suit on his own behalf. However, in paragraphs 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36 and 37 of the amended petition, the petitioner has raised complaints, not just with regard to himself as an intersex person, but also with regard to all other intersexuals. The reliefs sought, specifically prayers (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l,) (m), and (p) of the amended petition, are reliefs that will cover all the class of persons known as intersexuals. Primarily, the petitioner is pursuing rights which are personal to him, and secondly, he is pursuing a matter which he considers to be a matter of public interest i.e. the rights and violation of rights of intersexuals in the country. This raises the issue as to whether the issue before us is one of public interest. 102. “Public interest” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition as: “1.The general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; 2. something in which the public as a whole has a stake especially an interest that justifies governmental regulations”. Thus, in order to determine whether the suit before us is one of public interest, and whether the petitioner has locus standi to bring a representative suit, several questions arise: Who is an intersex person? Is there a body of persons in this country known as intersex persons or intersexuals? Is the petitioner an intersex person? Are issues concerning intersex persons issues concerning the general welfare of the public, or issues in which the public as a whole has a stake? 103. An argument has been raised, to the effect that the petitioner does not have locus standi to bring the petition in a representative capacity on behalf of other intersex persons, especially when those other intersex persons are not identified by name nor are their numbers known. In this regard, the case of Priscilla Nyokabi Kanyua vs The Attorney General (supra), is relevant. In that case, the development of judicial precedent on the issue of locus standi was traced, and a conclusion arrived at, that in matters of public interest courts have moved away from the previous restrictive position that a petitioner other than the Attorney General, must show that the matter of public interest complained of, injured him over and above the general public. The approach now preferred is a broader and more purposeful approach giving locus standi to anyone acting in good faith with minimal personal interest in a matter of public interest, to seek judicial intervention to ensure the sanctity of the constitution. 104. This was the position in the Il Chamus Case (supra) where Nyamu and Emukule JJ moved http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 28/45