Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 128585,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/128585/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 425,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, the Court directed the applicants to file and serve the respondents and all interested parties with the substantive Motion within 21 days from the date of the Order. The matter will, thereafter be set down for hearing in terms of our civil procedure. The Court Order indicated that failure – underline the word failure – by the applicants to file and serve the substantive Motion will lead to an automatic lapse of the leave as well as the stay granted. The Order of the Court was made on 3rd March, 2005 and if not complied with by the applicants, would have lapsed at the end of March, 2005. None of the documents presented to the Chair by Mr. Isaac Ruto indicate what subsequently transpired in this matter. There is nothing in the documents presented to the Chair to indicate whether or not, the applicants subsequently complied with the Orders of the Court or, in fact, the leave and stay automatically lapsed. In short, nothing in the documents presented to the Chair indicates the status of this matter at the moment and whether or not, it is still alive. As the Chair has only recently ruled, the sub judice rule is not one to be invoked lightly. It cannot be used to prevent this House from discharging its constitutional mandate unless weighty reasons are advanced. The danger of prejudice to the due determination of justice must be clearly demonstrated. Standing Order No.80 (2) is categorical in providing thus:- “A matter shall be considered to be sub judice when it refers to – underline – active criminal or civil proceedings and the discussion of such matter is likely to prejudice its fair determination.” Standing Order No.80 (4) makes it clear that the onus of showing that a matter is subjudice lies on the Member alleging so. Such a Member is required to produce evidence that Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Standing Order No.80 are applicable. As to if the matters in Civil Course No.313 of 2005 are active within the meaning of Standing Order No.80 (3) (c) when it is not evident that arrangements for hearing have progressed such as setting down the case for trial have been made in a way that it can be ended by judgment or discontinuance is doubtful. The documents presented to the Chair by Mr. Isaac Ruto on 27th August, 2009 are more than four years old. As the Chair has earlier indicated, nothing in the documents provides any evidence that this case has ever been set down for hearing. Standing Order No.80 does not envisage it to be the role of the Office of the Speaker to make inquiries at the Court Registry to establish the status of matters before them. Where sub judice is alleged, unless there is good cause to the contrary, the Chair will consider only the evidence tendered to it."
}