Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1022702,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1022702/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 327,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Garissa Township, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Aden Duale",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 15,
        "legal_name": "Aden Bare Duale",
        "slug": "aden-duale"
    },
    "content": "Prayer No.2 was: Is it within the authority of this House to expedite the issuance of titles, leases for the approval of letters of allotment issued to members of Louisa Community Development Society? In my opinion, as a House, the answer is no. The third prayer was: Is it possible for this House to preserve title deeds issued for public purpose? The answer, in line with Article 119 of the Constitution, is no. This House does not have those powers. The fourth prayer was: Is it within the authority of this House to order compensation for the demolition on the petitioners’ premises? The answer is no. All these prayers fall within the purview of the court of law. We have lawyers in this House. A court of law could have issued what we call dilatory orders on the right of the petitioners to occupy land. The court could have issued what they call in law mandamus order to ensure the issuance of titles. The court could have issued conservatory orders to preserve the title deeds earlier issued and the court could have ordered damages for any person who may have occasioned loss of demolition. That is in line with Article 165 of the Constitution that establishes the High Court. So, in line with Article 119 of the Constitution, this House cannot make a determination of the prayers sought by these petitioners. So, as Hon. Otiende Amollo said, I have no problem with recommendations No.2 and No.3, but recommendation No.1 is not implementable. The Committee has not told us anything on who the owners of Solio Construction Company Limited are."
}