Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 588621,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/588621/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 72,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ochanda",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1264,
        "legal_name": "Gideon Ochanda Ogolla",
        "slug": "gideon-ochanda-ogolla"
    },
    "content": "I believe we should look at on its own. Back to the High Court one, there is a provision for alternative dispute mechanisms. We are becoming a litigious country. Every manner of things are ending up in court. It means that our courts are going to be overwhelmed from time to time with issues that could easily be handled differently. This is why this Bill is very important when it provides for different ways on how we can look at disputes. My only problem is with Clause 26 that is talking about rules of alternative mechanisms. I want to believe that these are necessary. We need to have rules that guide the processes on how we get to alternative ways of settling our disputes but these rules in the Bill are left open. We need to know exactly who is to come up with these rules. I remember in this country there was a time when the Chief Justice came up with a ruling that rules were supposed to be done by Chief Magistrates but the Chief Magistrates did the rules and said that rules had not been done. I think we need to be very clear in terms of who exactly is supposed to do these rules and at what point these rules are supposed to come. Otherwise when we are providing space for alternative dispute mechanisms and we are saying rules are to be done when we do not know when they are to be done and by whom then I believe that there is something that is amiss in that area. The other thing that the Bill comes up with, which in my view is good, is the issue of a High Court Advisory Committee. This committee is useful particularly when we are looking at the issues of policy, practice and training but then there are many other matters that go with the whole administration. How do we look at the administration and issues on things that are mentioned like files disappearing, issues to do with long periods of time being taken before determination of a case? In my view, the composition of the committee is fine, but it needs to be composed of more other people outside the Judiciary, so that they are able to listen more to issues that are coming from outside. The Office of the Ombudsman needs to have representation in this Committee because there are many complaints that relate to issues of administration in the Judiciary. So, I believe that when we come to the issue of the High Court Advisory Committee, there needs to be an amendment that can help us deal with these things. The other thing that I want to bring out is connected to the issue of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms which need to be relating to the lower courts and the higher courts. What happens when a matter that was handled by the Magistrates Courts through an alternative way of settling disputes gets through to the High Court? What happens to what comes from the High Court and finally goes to the Court of Appeal? These are some of the things that I want to believe need to be looked at as we look at this Bill. I support the Bill with amendments. Hon. Speaker."
}