Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1444290,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1444290/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 100,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Veronica Maina",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "In instances where it was the father to take the net estate of the spouse who has passed on, in this amendment, it will now be the father and the mother to have that estate in equal shares. If either of them is dead, then the surviving parent can have the share of the spouse, the daughter or the son who has passed on. In the instance that there are no surviving parents, then the brothers and sisters. Before, it had a patriarchal tendency towards who holds the residue of that estate. Mr. Speaker, Sir, what this amendment has now done is to put the brothers and sisters in equal measure, and any child or children of deceased brothers and sisters in equal shares. This is important because, sometimes, you will find that the estates being distributed are actually not estates of the immediate parents of the people who are inheriting those estates. Sometimes, you find even grandchildren inheriting estates of their grandparents when there is no other surviving relative. If it is half-brothers, it is both half-brothers and half-sisters, any child or children of deceased half-brothers and half-sisters, or the relatives who are the nearest degree of consanguinity up to and including the sixth degree in equal shares. This is so that when you have one generation which has all died, then, it moves to the next generation maybe of the grandchildren, which is then next step of generation. This is the one that is referred to as the relatives who are in the nearest degree of consanguinity up to and including the sixth degree in equal measure. What this amendment has done is to put on the same level, brothers and sisters; sons and daughters. Just to assure you that these are the right amendments, if you look at the case law that has been generated from the courts, they have been more progressive than the legislation itself because the courts have now upheld that the definition of a child is not just the boy child; it is a boy child and a girl child. This is so that if I have one boy and one girl, the law will treat them equally as my children and none will have priority over the other. It is a very good amendment especially when you look at the population demography because we have 50-50 or slightly more women than men. That means, in any home you will now find sons and daughters. They are now being treated equally, which is a fact that has been happening in court anyway. Mr. Speaker, Sir, what we are doing with this amendment is to ensure that what the legal precedents have taken, can be captured as correct legal principles applicable and making it easier in distribution of the estates of deceased persons. The next amendment is under Section 40 of the Principle Act. It has a new subsection, that is, subsection 3, which states that-"
}