Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1589082,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589082/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 123,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Elisha Ongoya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Sen. Mungatana, the simple and straightforward answer to this question is that not even a notice of appeal, forget about the appeal itself, has been logged in respect of this decision. Not only has the County Assembly not appealed to this decision, but they have not even shown an intention to appeal, which is normally signaled by a notice of appeal. To the question raised by Sen. Cherarkey, my answer is as follows. This was not a conservatory order. This House has historically had issues which conservatory orders granted ex parte . The order we have here was granted after both parties were heard. In fact, the ruling of the court narrates the order of events. The Assembly lawyers were given time to go to their clients, take instructions, then come back and address themselves. So, this order was made after hearing both parties to the dispute. This is what distinguishes this from the other conservatory orders that this House has had occasion to deal with in the past. Sen. Wambua asked us another straightforward question. He asked if the Motion we are dealing with in this House is the same as the Motion that the court dealt with in Meru. Sen. Wambua, the simple and straightforward answer is yes, it is the same Motion that the court declared null and void and of no effect. Sen. Wakili Sigei asked an important question about validity of this Motion and our answer is as follows. The deficiency of this Motion is on multiple grounds. One, there is an order of the court declaring it null and void. When it is declared null and void, it is not a valid Motion. Number two, it is a piece of paper as I told you earlier. I will explain the reason why I say that it is a piece of paper. For a Motion to be said to be a Motion in this House, the distinguished Senate, it must go through the procedures known to the Constitution and the Standing Orders, be voted upon and be a resultant Motion. Even for this House, it cannot be proper for the Speaker and a few Members to sit somewhere, outside this House, and craft material that look like HANSARD and say that this is a Motion. So, it becomes invalid. The video that has just been played and the submission of the counsel prior to playing that video confirms this more than ever before. The counsel said that the HANSARD was completely vandalized. Therefore, they could not produce the HANSARD reports. This begs the question: Where did they get the material they have presented before you purporting to be HANSARD reports? That is not a legitimate origin of a valid Motion of a house. Sen. Kavindu Muthama raised an important question. She asked if it is right for the Senate to go against an order of the court. Generally, court orders involve two disputants. It can be a public interest matter like this, a matrimonial case or whatever case it is. It usually involves two disputants. It is never right for any person to disregard a court order with abandon. We are all consumers of legal judicial services one way or another. When we get a court order in our favor, we desire a country where that order means something. That would, therefore, be my answer to your question."
}