a) Klassy Hussein has no locus standi (the right of capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court) on the

ground that there was no private right interfered with.

[T]he respondent by virtue of his public office, having sued in his official capacity which he may not have expressly
described, has no locus standi to do so, but having done so, we are loath to allow the action to proceed any
further as such the action must necessarily fail. This claim plainly comes within such category of claim that we can
safely say to be obviously unsustainable. We reach the conclusion stated with little hesitation because there is, as it
is obvious to us, the public interest considerations in this case which, on balance, does not favour the right of
organs of government and public officials of the likes of the respondent to sue for defamation as this will inevitably
stifle free speech.

Counsel for the defendant refers the court to the case of Boyce v Paddington BC (1903) Ch
109 at 114 where Buckley J laid down the test for 'locus standi' of a litigant in a public
litigation:

"A plaintiff can sue without joining the Attorney General in two cases: first where the interference with the public
right is such as that some private right of his at the same time interfered with (e.g. where an obstruction is so
placed in a highway that the owner of premises abutting upon the highway is specially affected by reason that the
obstruction interferes with his private right of access from and to his premises to and from the highway); and,
secondly, where no private right is interfered with but the plaintiff in respect of his public right suffers special
damage peculiar to himself from the interference with the public right."

Referral jurisdiction