Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 558646,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/558646/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 276,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Anyango",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 130,
        "legal_name": "Dalmas Anyango Otieno",
        "slug": "dalmas-otieno"
    },
    "content": "say that they have no evidence to prosecute anybody. The EACC will similarly say so. If you leave the matter to be determined in court, the court will rely on what the plaintiff and the respondent will say. If the right ownership is not in court, we may end up with this valuable property going to one of the thieves. I would first recommend that the Committee remains seized of this matter and deals with the CID until they determine which way they will propose to proceed. They should also deal with the EACC over this matter and determine which way the EACC will be going. The Committee should ensure that the parties that are in court are the true parties one of whom--- If there is a court determination, this valuable asset should not be lost simply because of a legal default that was not presented in court. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, where should we end? If this valuable asset was a leasehold property, after a number of years its ownership would revert to the Government. So, at the end of the day, if there is no legally determined owner, now that documents are missing, the ownership of this land should revert to the State. There has to be a way in which it shall be determined that the land does not belong to any of the three or four claimants as of now. Possibly, the case in court will not give us the right verdict over this matter. Reference to the CID and the EACC may not give us the right resolution at the end of the day. The Kenyan public has to continue to rely on this Committee of Parliament to follow up this issue. This may be a unique case, in respect of which legislation may be required to determine how to deal with this particular asset, just like we legislated to deal with unclaimed assets in the banking sector. I listened carefully to the Chairman. It seems that when the original owner disappeared, Barclays Bank got some trusteeship to look after the asset. Some lawyer appeared along the way and confusing documents started appearing. This may end up being one of the unclaimed assets that will fall under the purview of the Unclaimed Assets Authority, effectively going to the custody of Government. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, to say that there was no Member of Parliament involved may not be very accurate. Why do I say so? When you sounded the alarm and there were people who were about to benefit out of this saga, and they all ran away, where did you expect to get them? You cannot get them because somebody interfered with the documentation with a view to instituting a new process of allocating the asset to some people, before the whistle was blown. So, no Member of Parliament would be guilty of somebody else’s intention to give him a benefit. In that way, you can absolve all of them of blame. You cannot unequivocally say that, that intention was not within the knowledge of some particular individuals. However, that is not the issue. That bit has been terminated before we can arrive at any decision. This Committee has not completed its job. Stay seized of the matter until complete disposal of this most valuable asset to which the attention of the House has been drawn by the public. Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker."
}