Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1009594,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1009594/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 291,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Funyula, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Wilberforce Oundo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13331,
        "legal_name": "Wilberforce Ojiambo Oundo",
        "slug": "wilberforce-ojiambo-oundo-2"
    },
    "content": "If you closely look at Clause 3 (14) and (15), they are a mere duplication. I thought the Mover would be listening, but fortunately the Chair is listening. They are mere duplications. They are a duplication in the sense that the ultimate end game of a registration process is to issue a title or a certificate of title. So they are essentially a duplication. I hope and imagine that the Bill was drafted before we passed the Land Use and Physical Planning Act of 2019. We request that the Mover or the Committee move with speed to align the same with the new legislative framework, instead of referring to the Physical Planning Act of 1996 that has long been repealed. Finally, Clause 3 (16) seems to be fairly vague. It is vague and unclear because, ultimately, the process is very clear that the issuance of a title is the ultimate end game. The Registrar of Titles does not approve subdivision schemes. That is the responsibility of the Director of Survey. The registrar cannot issue a title where there is no physical asset. So, we hope we will make amendments to clarify the same at the Committee of the whole House stage. With those remarks, I support. Thank you."
}