Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 278635,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/278635/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 792,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Orengo",
    "speaker_title": "The Minister for Lands",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 129,
        "legal_name": "Aggrey James Orengo",
        "slug": "james-orengo"
    },
    "content": " Madam Temporary Chairlady, I think that amendment actually is due to misunderstanding. What Clause 6 is saying--- For example, if the Commission finds that you acquired the title deed irregularly, that means that there are some procedures which were not undertaken, but which would not lead to revocation of title deed. For example, probably, you did not sign a document somewhere. That is an irregularity if it is required by the law. So, instead of throwing you away, they can rectify or correct the irregularity. But once you have done it, then they can also make consequential orders following that rectification. If there is anything that can be done in order to secure your title, they can also make a consequential order so that the matter is closed there. That is because normally, you will find a situation where, for example, you did not pay some portion like Stamp Duty and probably you did not pay conveyance fee. So, the Commission will say: “Okay, this is something which would not lead to annulment.” So, it will rectify and then allow you to pay. They will make a consequential order that: “Yes, we can rectify, but you pay whatever money you did not pay so that it can enable us to clean up the title.” So, I plead with you again that this is not the area where we are dealing with recommendations. We are dealing with a situation where the Commission should deal with it and if there is anything else to be done, then let it go to the courts. That is what informed that sub-clause (6)."
}