principle of “sufficient interest” are still valid and have not been overthrown, or overtaken, by the 2010 amendment that added the description “natural or legal” to the types of litigant section 15(2) accommodated. 32. In support of this doctrine, the legal precedents set in President of Malawi & Anor. v Kachere & Ors. (MSCA Civil Appeal 20 of 1995) [1995] MWSC 2 (19 November 1995); Civil Liberties Committee v Ministry of Justice & Anor. (MSCA Civil Appeal 12 of 1999) [2004] MWSC 1 (7 April 2004) and the persuasive case of Attorney General v NGO Coordination Board ex parte Kituo Cha Sheria [2017] eKLR are instructive. In the Attorney General v NGO Coordination Board ex parte Kituo Cha Sheria case, the Kenyan High Court unequivocally held that an applicant must establish a personal or direct interest in the matter at hand, rather than relying on broad or generalized concerns affecting the public. The Court emphasized that the principle of locus standi serves as a procedural filter, ensuring that judicial resources are reserved for genuine disputes that necessitate resolution by the Court. 33. A similar principle was articulated in the Australian High Court decision in Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493. The Court therein underscored that standing cannot be established on the basis of mere concern or sincere interest in a public issue. Instead, a tangible connection to the matter or demonstrable harm must be evident for a party to be granted standing. The decision emphasizes the importance of the doctrine of locus standi in maintaining judicial focus and efficiency. Page 14 of 45