Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 104095,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/104095/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 120,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "On Tuesday, 13th April, 2010, Question No. 135 by the Member for Migori, the Hon. John Pesa, was listed on the Order Paper seeking an answer from the Minister for Education as follows- (a) what is the Ministry’s position on the dues of thousands of teachers who retired between 1997 and 2007 and are yet to receive money running into millions of shillings as was ordered by the High Court two years ago; (b) why the Teachers’ Service Commission (TSC) has deliberately refused to implement court orders issued by the High Court sitting in Nakuru in 1997, soon after the negotiated salary deal between the Government and the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT); and, (c) whether the Minister could state the position of the Pensions Department and the Treasury on the matter and also indicate how much interest will be paid on these monies, considering that the affected teachers have incurred a lot of expenses in the hope of being paid by the Government. In response to the question, the Assistant Minister for Education, Prof. Ayiecho Olweny, informed the House that the matter is still pending in the Court of Appeal, having been lodged by the Government on 28th October, 2008, and it would, therefore, be sub judice to discuss the matter in the House before a ruling is delivered. The Assistant Minister then laid some documents on the Table in support of his proposition, that the matter is before the Court of Appeal. Hon. Members, the sub judice rule finds expression in Standing Order No. 80, and in particular, Standing Order No. 80(4) imposes a duty on a Member claiming that a matter is subjudice to provide the requisite evidence. It states, and I quote- “A Member alleging that a matter is sub judice shall provide evidence to show that paragraphs (2) and (3) are applicable.” Hon. Members, I have carefully scrutinised the documents tabled by Prof. Olweny in support of his claim that the matter is in court. These documents, purporting to be a record of appeal do not indicate that they have, in fact, been filed in court in as much as they do not bear a court stamp nor do they have a case number. The only substantive document among those tabled is the judgement of the High Court sitting in Nakuru in Civil Case No. 65 of 2006, Simon P. Kamau & Others vs. Teachers Service Commission which, if anything, is evidence that the matter was concluded by the court. No pleadings have been tabled by the Assistant Minister as required. Consequently, there is no evidence that an appeal was lodged in court on 28th October, 2008, as claimed by the Hon. Olweny. In addition, and more importantly, the purported record of appeal tabled by the Assistant Minister dated 5th November, 2009 does not accord with the date he claims an appeal was lodged in the Court of Appeal."
}