5 S.C. 128\02 Court the common law test, namely having an interest in the matter under adjudication, is sufficient to establish locus standi.2 In a constitutional application in the High Court all that a litigant is required to show to establish locus standi is a substantial interest in a matter. A direct approach to the Supreme Court requires a litigant to allege that his not another person’s fundamental right has been violated. Obviously it is not sufficient to merely allege that one’s fundamental right has been, is, or is likely to be violated. The factual basis for such an allegation has to be set out. It follows, therefore, that when a litigant is denied a hearing by this Court because he has no locus standi that does not necessarily mean that the door to litigation has been closed. It may merely mean that the litigant has commenced his application in the wrong forum taking into account the basis of his locus standi. A constitutional application commenced in the High Court can always find its way to the Supreme Court on appeal. In short, the basis of a litigant’s locus standi in the High Court is much wider than it is in this Court sitting as a constitutional court. In my view it would be doing violence to the language of section 24 of the Constitution to ascribe to it the meaning that it is sufficient to allege an interest in the matter in order to establish locus standi. The applicant, as already stated, initially approached this Court in the case of Capital Radio (Private) Limited v Minister of Information, Posts and 2 Van Winsen, Celliers and Loots stated in Herbstein & Van Winsen: The Civil Practice of Supreme Court of South Africa 4 Ed, at 364; Zimbabwe Teachers Association & Ors v Minister of Education 1990 (2) ZLR 48 at 51B et seq