HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 263873,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/263873/?format=api",
"text_counter": 237,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Orengo",
"speaker_title": "The Minister for Lands",
"speaker": {
"id": 129,
"legal_name": "Aggrey James Orengo",
"slug": "james-orengo"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 14(5) reads: “Where the Commission finds that the title was acquired in an unlawful manner, the Commission shall recommend:- (a) to the Registrar, the revocation of the title; and, (b) to the national or county government the payment of compensation to the aggrieved party.” Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, we cannot run away from those provisions. This is because the Constitution, under Article 40, does not recognize any right or interest in land, that is determined to have been unlawfully acquired. So, the only option then is for the Commission to recommend to the Registrar to revoke the title. But I think that these provisions are making a very important distinction which is found in sub-clause (6). It says that where Commission finds that the title was irregularly acquired, the Commission shall take appropriate steps to correct the irregularity and may also make consequential orders. Sub-clause (7) says that no revocation of title shall be effected against a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of a defect in the title. So, if the title was irregularly acquired and it has passed hands to a second or third hand, these provisions prefer the option that, that title should be regularized and the purchaser for value without notice of a defect in the title, should not be punished, and other methods of redress be found. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the interpretation clause, you will see the definition of the word “unlawful” as opposed to the word “irregular.” I think that, that is important, so that when the Commission or anybody is dealing with these matters, they would know the clear distinction between the two. But I must say that if there was no expeditious process of dealing with this issue of grants and disposition of public land, in a quasi-administrative and quasi-judicial manner, the courts would find it very difficult to deal with these issues because of the volume of work. Also, the Judges that are being appointed may never be enough. The land courts have not also been established properly. We will have one land court in every county. I think these are matters which we must find a way of dealing with. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, in saying this, I want to pose a question to Members of Parliament. For example, the Kenyatta International Conference Centre (KICC) was public land which was never available for alienation. By some decision which was made at some point it was passed to a political party and became its property, although the building is built from public funds and the land belonged to the public. It was never available for alienation and the political party concerned did not add even one brick on that building. You end up suffering a long court process because justice must cut both ways in determination. There is that person who legally owns the land and has done something with it. Do you wait for a long legal process to make such a determination? I think when we made a decision to give a title to KICC, the Government has found better things to do with that land. Even when they are working with other partners, it is much easier because they can then show that the building truly belongs to the Government and is a public institution. One can go on and on with examples. There is the court in Eldoret which has always been a court and was never available for alienation. There is also the court in Kisumu which was never available for alienation, but they find themselves in the hands of private developers who do not develop. In fact, in all the land that was grabbed in a similar fashion, the first thing they do is to get a loan using that piece of land as security, and that loan is not used for the purposes of developing that particular piece of land. So, we are dealing with a mischief that has made even development to be very difficult in this country. Those investors that are looking for land to develop cannot get it because it all went into the hands of characters who were either speculating with the land or just wanted to make quick money. We have to have a more expeditious way of dealing with such situations. So, this is a critical chapter that we need to look at. Members of Parliament can give their suggestions as to whether this is the desired process. It is here because the Constitution says that it is should be somewhere in the laws and we have found that the appropriate body to deal with this particular issue should be the National Land Commission. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to the timeframe, the Constitution does not give a timeframe but this Bill, which is subject to what is in the Constitution, is trying to urge the Commission to deal with these matters within five years. However, if the Commission finds that they need a longer period, Clause 14(9) gives the Commission the opportunity to petition Parliament to extend the period for that particular undertaking. The other additional function of the Commission that I think is critical and very important is the one of investigation of historical injustices. Those powers are already given to the National Land Commission by the Constitution in Article 67, which says:- “67(2)(e) the functions of the National Land Commission are to initiate investigations on its own initiative or on a complaint into present or historical land injustices and recommend appropriate redress.”"
}