HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 266322,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/266322/?format=api",
"text_counter": 257,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Ms. Karua",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 166,
"legal_name": "Martha Wangari Karua",
"slug": "martha-karua"
},
"content": "Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity. I rise in support of the Bill. I want to salute the distinguished Kenyans and the Members of Parliament who have contributed to this Bill before me, and in particular the relevant Minister who has brought forward this Bill. I want to agree with my colleague and friend, hon. Ntimama. We have come from a history of deceit, fraud and outright land grabbing, with people abusing their positions and taking advantage of those who are less knowledgeable. We have also had officers of the Lands Office taking advantage to unfairly take away people’s land. So, what we should be looking at in every Bill before us is what we are doing to ensure that this does not recur. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, it is true that the white man took away our land but thereafter, we took land from each other. We short-changed each other. In every place you go, you will find almost throughout Kenya there are people in need of settlement. In 50 years of Independence, we have not dealt fairly with our own people. We cannot continue to give excuses of the colonial era. We have failed ourselves, and we now have an opportunity to redress the grievances of our people. I want to go back to an Act and to, firstly, agree that we actually need to consolidate all the laws that assist us to register land. I am not convinced that the Sectional Registration Act should not have been part of this Bill. We need a Sectional Titles Act. We need a law that will allow people to own apartments. It should have been possible to make provision in this law, so that we can consolidate all the laws relating to titles. I want to urge the Minister to consider, later on, to make amendments to this law. If not during this time, he can come up with the Miscellaneous Statutory (Amendment) Bill that will address the sectional titles, so that we consolidate the registration into just one law and not various laws. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I am looking at Clause 3 and looking at the application of this law, I am glad that the Constitution is being cited in particular, Articles 62 and 64. So, whatever we do, we make sure that we are aligning it with the Constitution we passed. I am also looking at the community land register. The question I am asking is: Why do we have a different register for community land? If it is because we have to register the names of all the individuals involved in the groups, we should be conscious that this law should be under preparation. Even if there is no limitation of time on it, like the ones we are discussing, we should be able to discuss these Bills pretty soon, so that we know issues of community land have been properly provided for. I am looking at Clause 10 and Clause 30 because they correspond. Clause 10 says unless otherwise stated the information in the registers shall not include express or constructive or implied notice. Part (b) also talks of express constructive or implied knowledge of information on the part of any person. I am wondering why Clause 10 was found to be necessary, especially in view of Clause 30 which is clearly saying that notwithstanding Clause 10, every proprietor at the time of acquiring any land, lease or charge shall be deemed to have had notice of every entry in the register relating to the land lease or charge and subsisting at the time of the time of acquisition. If it appears a little bit like it is contradictory because it is talking about constructive notice and yet, that is precisely permitting that. I would ask the Minister to evaluate and see whether we need those two sections. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I am happy that Clause 34 is talking about lost titles. It is allowing the registrar to issue a new certificate if the registrar to proceed in Clause 33 without the original title if the registrar is satisfied that the proprietor cannot produce it. However, the conditions upon which the registrar satisfies himself or herself that this cannot be produced must be clearly spelled out. Clause 34 does spell out what the registrar needs to do before issuing another title deed. However, we must tighten this up that is only upon satisfying certain conditions that the registrar can proceed to issue another title deed. As I said, we are coming from a past of deceit. We know that there are people who get title deeds on parcels that are not theirs. We do not want people to pretend they have lost title deeds and they are acquiring new titles on land that does not belong to them. We need to legislate with hindsight so that we are able to seal the loopholes that people have been using. On Clause 37(2), I am suggesting that when it comes to Committee Stage, we should delete this sub-clause because it is likely to perpetuate fraud. When you say that nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing an unregistered instrument from operating as a contract, that may seem an innocent provision. However, I am looking at what happens in most of our constituencies where people who are poor, old or not knowledgeable are just taken on a drinking spree by brokers who then give them a little money and get them to sign contracts for the sale of land. If we put this clause that is saying that an unregistered instrument can operate as a contract, we may perpetuate the fraud that is already existing by unscrupulous people. I am not convinced that that is a clause we should retain in this law. I am also directing my mind to Clause 29. Clause 29 is the overriding interest. I want to hail this clause. It is very important. We know very well that in most of our counties, most public utility land has been acquired irregularly. Where will we build those county headquarters we are talking about? How will we fund the facilities? All the waterways in a city like Nairobi have already been grabbed and in most of them buildings have come up. If we need to re-plan, what will happen? This is a clause that will help us to move forward. We will move forward in accordance with the law because anybody whose land is found that the public has an overriding interest will definitely be compensated. It will not be a total loss. So, this is a clause that is very important. It means that when you go purchasing a piece of land that is owned by a couple make sure that both of them are in the deal. What happens in upcountry is that some brokers get some of the sellers who can be lured with a little money to just, in the case of women, they just pick a woman at the market and appear before the Land Board as the spouse. The result is that the family will learn of the sale when they are coming to be evicted. This is telling the buyer, let the buyer beware. You must do your homework. You must ensure that everything is in order. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, again, my attention was drawn to Clause 13 about the appointment of the chief land registrar. I think that the chief land registrar will have so much power. What is happening today? Successive Ministers have been put in the Ministry of Lands since 2003 when the Kibaki Administration came in. Why have they not been able to fight the corruption completely in the Lands Office? It has only been fought partially. It is because officers at the Lands Office like many other unscrupulous Kenyans are taking advantage of their positions and abusing the office. We have to find a transparent formula to appoint the land registrar, especially the Chief Lands Registrar. Although this is not a constitutional office, there is merit in becoming very clear that, that officer must be hired competitively and openly, so that the public knows X is the one competing for land registrar. If they have any adverse information, it will come out to the public, so that only people of calibre and integrity will have the courage to apply for that position. I am glad Chapter 6 of the Constitution is there. That will again help us. However, let us have that threshold of having interviews conducted publicly so that people know who is going to be superintending over registration and all interest in land in this country. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, in Clause 95, I have seen matrimonial property. I am wondering - the Minister may need to answer this when responding to this Motion - why did he find it necessary to put the spouses under matrimonial property as tenants in common as opposed to joint tenants? I thought “joint tenants” would be a better and clearer term than tenants in common where you then give the Registrar the power to determine what shares each owns. We know that in spousal relations, this is a matter that will be more difficult than even other family disputes and clan disputes. It may be better to just clarify it and make the spouses joint tenants. After all, that is what we hear people swearing; for better, for worse and that they will share everything when they say, “I do”. This is an area that needs clarification. Unless it is a polygamous union where then you can make them tenants in common, in monogamous unions this ought to be joint ownership. In Clause 95 (2) there is reference of customary certificate of ownership. What is that animal called “customary certificate”? We know that there are no customary certificates. Are we again allowing brokers to go and collect one or two elders, compromise them and get them to write a note that somebody has a customary certificate on matrimonial property or any other issue? Let us not put issues here which we know and we can see beforehand are going to be problematic. Normally in matrimonial issues where there is a dispute, a court of law listens to the evidence and rules one way or the other. Who are these other people we are leaving to issue customary certificates something not known in law as we speak? Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I also want to very quickly say that I want to support what my colleague Mr. Ethuro said that we must settle the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) before the first quarter of this year. Let the Government not keep on telling us that they will settle them. Let them do it now. On Clause 105 which is the very last there are offences by persons who knowingly make false statements, knowingly give false information, fraudulently procure and all the other things. There must be a corresponding offence on the Chief Land Registrar or the Land Registrars and all the officers working in the Lands office. In the past, quite a number of them have been part of the corruption. They have denied whole communities their land. They have denied individuals and families their land. Let us have a corresponding offence. This is the only way we can have a clean break with our past. Everybody should bear responsibility and account for their actions. With those very many words, I beg to support."
}