Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 522753,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/522753/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 161,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ochieng’",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2955,
        "legal_name": "David Ouma Ochieng'",
        "slug": "david-ouma-ochieng"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, I have seen a very curious provision also in Clause 176 of this Bill. It tries to limit the ability of a Kenyan to access our courts under judicial review. First of all, judicial review is a preserve of the High Court. Once you choose to go to the High Court, you should not be allowed to go to any other place. Secondly, accessing the High Court for judicial review should not be conditioned--- I want to read that one also because this is one area we may need to amend. It states that before you can access the High Court for judicial review, you must make payment which shall be a percentage of-- - It says that the application for a judicial review shall be accepted only after the aggrieved party pays a percentage of the contract value as security fee as shall be prescribed in the regulations. So, before you can move to the courts on judicial review, you must pay a percentage. You have not won the tender and you think that you are aggrieved then for you to access the court you are required to pay some money which is a percentage of the contract. Will we have people accessing the courts for this kind of a remedy? This is a Clause that is being used, of course, to discourage people from going to court to review decisions. However, it should not be done in a way that kills the enjoyment of that particular right. Indeed, it is one of the clauses that we may need to amend."
}