Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 590163,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/590163/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 102,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Chea",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1694,
        "legal_name": "Mwinga Gunga Chea",
        "slug": "mwinga-gunga-chea"
    },
    "content": "Under Part IV of this Bill, Small Claims Courts have been encouraged to adopt a simple procedure that all parties are conversant with. If you proceed further to Clause 17 of the Bill, you will see that the Court has been given power to control its own procedure in the management of its affairs. If the question of procedure, as has been addressed in this Bill, is well-taken care of, matters will be sorted out amicably and these other technicalities will not exist. The most important thing in this Bill is that the adjudicator has been encouraged to ensure that parties arrive at a consensus. Consent is quite important in the determination of matters. When a matter is solved by way of consent, the parties will most likely agree and will go back to their original positions because the acrimonious way of handling matters has not been employed. Another thing that has come out in this Bill is the issue of the language of the courts. Ordinarily in our courts, we have been using English and Kiswahili. Under the provisions of Clause 21 of the Bill, the Small Claims Courts have been encouraged to employ the use of indigenous languages. I foresee a situation where parties before court in various parts of this country will use their vernacular languages. This is quite important because at times, the use of Kiswahili or English hampers justice. This is a very important development in the practice of law. The other thing I wish to point out on the question of procedure is the rule of evidence. In this court, it is encouraged that strict rules of evidence should not be employed. The question of a court insisting that the author or maker of a document has to appear before court no longer arises. With the absence of these strict rules of evidence, matters are likely to be sorted out well and justice is likely to be attained. Another issue is the expeditious disposal of these matters. It is stated in this Bill that any matter that is presented for hearing either has to be concluded on the same day or the hearing has to proceed on a day-to-day basis. As a result of matters not taking too long before they are concluded, we will avoid situations where files disappear from the court registries and cases of evidence getting lost along the way. If matters are going to be heard on a day-to-day basis, justice is likely to be dispensed with very fast and that is what Kenyans want to hear. In conclusion, I wish to agree with my fellow Members who have contributed to the issue of the adjudicator. Clause 5 of the Bill creates the Office of the Adjudicator. I agree with that but the qualifications, as has been stated, are really high. If an adjudicator must have had five years’ experience in the legal field, it may be difficult to get such people. For a small claim of Kshs100,000 and below, and in a situation where some of these claims, as has already been said, used to be handled by people who did not even have knowledge in law, in my view, even an advocate who has practised for two or three years can adequately handle such matters. With those few remarks, I support the Bill."
}