Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 541545,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/541545/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 363,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Chepkonga",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1154,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Kiprono Chepkonga",
        "slug": "samuel-kiprono-chepkonga"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I beg to move:- THAT, Clause 9 of the Bill be amended— (a) In sub-clause (1) by deleting the words “pursuant to section 8” appearing immediatelyafter the word “review”; b) In sub-clause (2) by deleting the words “or tribunal” appearing immediately after theword “Court”; (c) By deleting sub-clause (3) and substituting therefor the following new sub clauses− (4) Where the relief sought is an order to quash any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the date when the grounds of the application first arose shall be taken to be the date of judgment, order, conviction or proceeding. (5) A person aggrieved by an order made in the exercise of the judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court may appeal to the Court of Appeal.” What we are seeking to amend is fairly straight forward. In Sub-clause (1), the words “pursuant to Section 8” are superfluous and redundant after the word “review”. The second thing that we are seeking to amend in Sub-clause (2) is deleting the words “or tribunal” appearing immediately after the word “court”. The reason we are removing “or tribunal” is that judicial review can only be undertaken by courts. Tribunals are quasi- judicial bodies and they cannot, therefore, handle judicial review. That is also a preserve of the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court by the Constitution. So, this power cannot be given to quasi-judicial bodies."
}