Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1087016,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1087016/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 35,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Ndwiga",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 278,
        "legal_name": "Peter Njeru Ndwiga",
        "slug": "peter-ndwiga"
    },
    "content": "i. Technical capability; ii. Financial ability to undertake large operations; iii. Lease period; iv. Initial security deposit; v. Initial moratorium period; vi. Lease rent amount; vii. Out of Crop (OOC) period; viii. Liquidated damages on third party interference; ix. Ability to revive the operations; and x. Socio-economic aspects and community welfare. k) On the matter of public participation, private treaty was chosen, however, the proposed leasing was carried in the media for several months. The Governor of Kakamega County has been kept apprised on developments, engagements have been made with area MPs, secured lenders, NSE, CMA and the National Treasury. Mr. Speaker, Sir, following queries were raised by Members and the Receiver Manager made the following clarifications- a) That, there was currently no lease agreement in place for the leasing of the Mumias Sugar Company Limited as the bidding process was ongoing and no bidder had been awarded the bid; b) That, the Receiver Manager had not advertised for the proposed leasing of the Company and instead preferred private treaties which were cheaper, more convenient and faster than the advertisement process; c) That, the Receiver Manager, was not in receipt of any withdrawal of a bidder, despite media reports that Devki Group had withdrawn its bid; d) That at the start of the receivership, the Company owed Kshs2.6 billion and currently owes Kshs2.765 billion as a result of accrued interest; e) That, a minimum of Kshs3 billion, in the opinion of the Receiver Manager, would be necessary for investment into the Company for its revival. However, no technical evaluation had been carried out; and f) That, there was no conflict of interest on the part of the Receiver Manager in dealing with Devki Group."
}