Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1036450,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1036450/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1502,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kipipiri, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Amos Kimunya",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": " Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I am happy with it. I think we are all clear. Basically, we are saying that all officers are liable for the offence of the company unless they can prove that they did not know — the act took place without their knowledge — or they took reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence. So, a director or anyone who was on duty and who did not know that there was coffee or tea in the store being taken away on that night cannot be taken to court because of whatever happened in the company. A licensee doing something funny, if the licensee is a body corporate, can be sued and the directors will jointly and severally be sued unless they prove that on that board meeting that agreed to do something funny, they were not there. I probably can put it the opposite way that said it removes the vicarious. It actually puts in vicarious liabilities unless you can prove that you are not vicariously liable, if Hon. Christopher Omulele would support my legal interpretation in my limited way. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}