Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 297673,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/297673/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 36,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Khaniri",
    "speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for Information and Communications",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 171,
        "legal_name": "George Munyasa Khaniri",
        "slug": "george-khaniri"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, for the benefit of the hon. Member and the House, Section 46 provides, and I quote:- “where any action or other legal proceedings is commenced against the corporation for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act or of any public duty or authority, in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act or of any such duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect- (a) the action or legal proceeding shall not be commenced against the corporation until at least one month written notice containing the particulars of the claim and of the intention to commence the action or legal proceedings has been served upon the Managing Director by the plaintiff or his agent. (b) the action or legal proceedings shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within 12 months next after the act, neglect, default complained of or, in the case of continuing injury or damage, within six months next after the cessation thereof.” Mr. Speaker, Sir, on 1st October, 2009 the counsel for the first defendant raised the preliminary objection as alluded to in its defence at the hearing thereof. The court did uphold the said preliminary objection on the grounds that it was not disputed that the alleged breach occurred in 1970s and the plaintiff became aware of the same in April, 2001. However, the suit was filed on 19th August, 2002, a period of over 12 months after the cause of action arose. This was in contravention of Section 46(b) of the aforementioned Act which bars claims instituted after the expiry of 12 months from the date of the cause of action. The said provision is a mandatory requirement with no exceptions. Therefore, the suit having been statute-barred, the court proceeded to strike out the same as against the first defendant with costs to the first defendant. In the circumstances, there exists no legal basis for payment of any compensation by KBC to Mr. Enock Ondego, a competent court having heard the matter and issued an order in the terms earlier mentioned. Thus any claim by Mr. Ondego against the KBC is untenable---"
}