Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1111120,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1111120/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 207,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13465,
        "legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
        "slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
    },
    "content": "particular area in which it does so is where it proposes, in Section 69, that even where a landlord wants to demolish or repair premises, then they must give notice. Previously, one of the ways landlords would deal with tenants if they wanted to evict them was that instead of trying to evict them, they would just remove doors, windows or roofs under the guise of doing repairs. Before, there was some sort of confusion in terms of tribunals dealing with residential premises and those dealing with business premises, each of which had a different jurisdiction and different standards. This Bill now seeks to rationalise into a tribunal that is appointed through the Judicial Service Commission and it clearly states out the qualifications. It speaks to the fairness in terms of rent. If there is a dispute as to whether the rent that is being sought by the landlord is fair or not, it sets the perimeters of determining the market rent. I also find that it does something very fundamental. Previously, the Business Rent Tribunal and the Rent Restriction Tribunal did not have the full jurisdiction that most courts would have. In that respect, they would sometimes not have the right to give injunctions. They would not even reinstate a tenant who was wrongfully evicted. But this Bill now gives them that power. If a landlord wrongfully evicts a tenant, they can be reinstated, or even if there is necessity to grant an injunction, they can do so like any other court of law. I fully support the Bill. Thank you very much."
}