6 S.C. 128\02 Telecommunications S-99-2000 on the basis that section 27 of the Broadcasting Act [Chapter 12:01] was unconstitutional. As I understand the judgment the applicant applied to this Court, in that case, on the basis that as an individual its right to receive and impart information was abridged by section 27 in that, that section restricted the means of communication between individuals. If the applicant had sought relief in the same capacity in these proceedings, namely that as an individual, its right to receive and impart information was being or is likely to be abridged by the impugned sections of the Act I would have little difficulty in concluding that the applicant had locus standi in respect of all the impugned sections. This capacity could have been pleaded in the alternative. However, the applicant has elected to approach this Court on the basis that it is an aspiring radio broadcaster and as such certain provisions of the Act are likely to abridge its fundamental rights as an aspiring broadcaster. In my view by adopting this approach the applicant narrowed its own basis for locus standi. I might also add that where facts are common cause and the question of whether on the admitted facts a litigant has locus standi that issue is a question of law which need not be pleaded. Failure to raise that issue on the papers is not fatal. The court can and indeed should apply the law to the admitted facts but whenever possible both counsel should be given an opportunity to make submissions on the points of law that may not have been raised on the papers or in argument. I shall further address the issue of locus standi when I come to deal with the specific sections that have been impugned.