HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1444287,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1444287/?format=api",
"text_counter": 97,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Veronica Maina",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "equivalent to the children who are born by the couple, born by the man who has adopted them, born by the man and the woman, or where the parental responsibility is assumed by the man and the woman, or a couple who have adopted that child. Mr. Speaker, Sir, this definition now is expanded. Even though the law had not expanded this definition, many lawsuits have been taken to court to define who a child is. The law will now clarify that an adopted child should be treated as a child of that couple and should have equivalent rights to the biological child of that couple. In the principal Act now, there is the term ‘intermeddling’, which is introduced and defined. The intermeddling is in relation to the properties of the deceased. Our courts are replete with of a lot of data from cases that have been brought before them on the instance of offenders who are intermeddling with the estate of the deceased, and we know them. Even where cases have not been proffered or disputes have not been recorded, we know of many family barazas where relatives who perceive themselves to be stronger than the widow and will meddle with the estate of the deceased. I think every single Senator in this House has come across such cases, where the property of the deceased person is interfered with, possession taken, and the properties being disposed of. Somebody else is trying to forge a title, change the property, collect the rents, or any benefits that are emanating from such properties. The concept of intermeddling has been redefined better in these amendments. They have been redefined to mean taking possession of, disposing of, charging, receiving, distributing, leasing or using property of a deceased without authority under this Act or any other applicable law or even ejecting a surviving spouse or a child from their matrimonial homes. Mr. Speaker, Sir, from the stakeholders engagement we have received from different actors in this field, they have even proposed that this definition should even be expanded further to include any act or any action of ejecting a surviving spouse or a child from matrimonial homes or matrimonial properties, and any other action that may be deemed to become unlawful as it concerns dealing with the deceased person's estate. Therefore, that means it will no longer be business as usual once this amendment is enacted. If somebody intermeddles with the estate of the deceased, then it means there will be criminal culpability. It means there will be penal sanction, so that those big brothers - I apologize for using the “big brothers” - because they are the ones maybe or male relatives who have really oppressed widows who are vulnerable and who are busy mourning their husbands - can then now take a backseat and consider whether they can take the criminal sanction that will emanate from such behavior. That would as well mean that, after these amendments are introduced, accepted and adopted as part of our laws and enacted as such, it will then mean that those widows who have cried for many days, who have been thrown out of their estates, whose children could have been thrown into the streets by other relatives, that will become a thing of the past. We have seen on many occasions that widows will not only be thrown out of the properties, but you will even find that some very treacherous relatives or distant relatives have walked in, carted away a vehicle, even carted away movable property, furniture, or The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
}