Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1109031,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1109031/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 558,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ol Kalou, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. David Kiaraho",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2648,
        "legal_name": "David Njuguna Kiaraho",
        "slug": "david-njuguna-kiaraho"
    },
    "content": "On the same note on the issue of timelines of dispute resolution by the tribunal, since this is very key and important considering developers who have put up these units. Let us take into consideration they have put in money and some of them are probably paying mortgages. So, the sooner these disputes are resolved the better for all the parties concerned. As I was saying in Clause 45, there is no defined timelines for provision of variation which can lessen the process to the disadvantage of both the landlord and the tenant. Given Kenya’s leadership in the digital platform, I suggest that we should encourage the integration of digital interface, whereby all tribunal applications and determinations will be available on a digital portal. This will assist in promoting strict timelines kept by the tribunal; and promote the availability of data or market rentals which, in itself, will promote efficiencies in the tribunal. On the issue of equity of risk, looking at clause 25(1)(c), it states, that a landlord can terminate a lease without reference to a Tribunal, if a tenant has defaulted for three consecutive months. I suggest, the period after which a landlord can terminate a lease without reference to the tribunal should be ringed to the period of security deposit held by the landlord. For example, if a landlord holds three months security deposit, then, the landlord needs to wait for a three months period of rent default prior to terminating the lease. On the same note, if you look at clauses 59 and 60 of the Bill, they require the landlord to keep a unit for 60 days in case of a tenant’s death or abandonment. This places undue burden and hardship on a landlord for events outside their control. I suggest a period of 30 days in case of death of a tenant and 15 days in case of abandonment of goods by a tenant. Let us note that landlords are paying facilities on their property which are due even when there is no tenant. These provisions disadvantage the landlord, who may have a ready tenant but loses out because of time. Another key concern that we need to look at is the equity of risks in clause 3(1), which states that the bill will not apply to residential premises whose monthly rent does not exceed such amount as the Cabinet Secretary may prescribe. It is currently not clear whether the Bill will not apply to informal settlements, as the rent flow is unknown. Hence, extensive stakeholder consultation is required in determining the rent flow and the same should be adjusted in line with the market forces at a minimum of every five years. On some of the issues I have just pointed out, we are in the process of coming up with various amendments. As Hon. Oundo has just said, he has also noticed that there are quite a number of grey areas which need to be looked into. I request that we join forces with other people who have found areas which need to be streamlined. I believe that if we do so, we will end up with a very clean document which will be very good for all of us. Thank you very much, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker."
}