Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1503286,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1503286/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 526,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Marakwet West, Independent",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Timothy Kipchumba",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " For judicial reviews, you know that one must first seek leave. Anything more than 45 days may create some level of injustice to the other party if that other party makes counter applications. The matter, if not disposed of within the 45 days provided under current legislation, may occasion injustice to the other party. For example, if one appeals to the Court of Appeal and the law is cast on stone that the matter must be prosecuted within 45 days, an injustice may be occasioned to the other parties. I understand your position that we should have limited the matter just like we have done to the election petitions, but this is a matter of judicial review. There may be many review matters that the courts may not be able to handle within the prescribed period of 45 days. On matters to do with elections, it is only a single presidential election that is handled within 14 days. For this one, there may be very many applications that may not be adequately handled within that period of time. This also applies to the appeal from the High Court. Under Clause 175, it says that for a person aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, 14 days period has been granted. We are aware that under the Court of Appeal, we have the Court of Appeal (Organisation and Administration) Act, which deals with the issue of time. Finally, we have a very important amendment under Clause 26(b), about people who supply substandard goods. That has now been criminalised. It says that a person who certifies"
}