Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1483335,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1483335/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 97,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Speaker (",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "A preliminary objection was defined in the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Company Limited versus West End Distributors Ltd (969) EA as follows- “A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law, which is argued on assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has not been ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of a judicial discretion.” In this case, it is not in contention that the County Assembly of Kericho has 47 Members, and 31 of these Members voted in favour of the Motion for the proposed removal from office, by impeachment, of the governor of Kericho County. The only question that has risen as a preliminary matter is whether the two-thirds threshold was met and the consequence if such threshold was not met. Linked to this question is the question whether this is a matter to be determined by the Speaker under Rule 30(1) of the Third Schedule to the Senate Standing Orders or a matter to be to be determined by Plenary. This matter was argued by counsel for the governor in support of determination by the Speaker while the County Assembly took the opposite view. Senators who spoke supported the view advanced by the County Assembly. It is not in doubt that the trial court in impeachment matters is the Senate. It is however also not in doubt that Rule 30 vests in the Speaker as the presiding officer, the power to make certain determination for purpose of continuity of proceedings of impeachment proceedings. Nevertheless, taking one thing with another and in the context of the totality of the current proceedings, I rule that the question on whether to uphold the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the governor on the matter of whether the threshold for impeachment was met will be determined in the present case by a vote of the Senate. This is so because as earlier explained in this ruling, the preliminary objection raised in the present case is of such momentous character that it goes to the substratum of the impeachment proceedings and has the prospect of terminating the proceedings at this point. The County Governments Act and the Senate Standing Orders did not contemplate a situation where the Speaker is called upon to terminate the proceedings in a proposed impeachment without the participation in that decision by the Senate. I further rule that considering that the effect of this vote could be a determination of the impeachment process as a whole, this is a matter concerning counties and accordingly, the preliminary objection will be upheld if supported by 24 delegations. In such event, the present proceedings will forthwith terminate. The procedure for going to this vote, hon. Senators, will be a Motion in the usual manner, preceded by a Notice of Motion. The vote will be taken upon the conclusion of debate in the usual manner and to this end, I have directed the Clerk to prepare and circulate a Supplementary Order Paper containing the Notice of Motion and the Motion as soon as I conclude with this ruling. 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."
}