Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 590206,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/590206/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 145,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kubai Iringo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1574,
        "legal_name": "Cyprian Kubai Iringo",
        "slug": "cyprian-kubai-iringo"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this Bill. At the outset, I appreciate the work that the Leader of the Majority Party is doing by trying to push these constitutional Bills for which we sought extension. We should struggle to finalise these Bills before the short extension that was given by the National Assembly expires. I support this Bill because it covers a lot of issues. It promotes precise and expeditious resolution of small cases. The number of cases in Kenya, whether small or big, is so high compared to the number of courts in the country. Given the limited number of courts and the strict jurisdiction always practised in the courts, it becomes very difficult for some people, especially those who are not versed in court procedures, to get justice within the right time. Some of them do not understand court judgments because they do not follow what happens in court. Therefore, those courts will save litigants time and costs because we shall have more courts in the sub-counties. The provisions of the Bill are quite flexible to the extent that there is room for the CJ to look at each individual’s small case on its own merit. An adjudicator will be given either a number of cases or a single case to handle on its own merits. Litigants in those courts will feel satisfied because there is no limitation on language. In other courts, illiterate people or people with impaired hearing do not understand some things. They walk out and ask what was said in the court. This Bill addresses the challenge of language. The language to be used in those courts will be a language understandable to the adjudicator, court officers, respondents and litigants. That flexibility is very good. Secondly, there is the provision that the courts will be mobile. The courts can be taken nearer to the people. To move the adjudicator and his team to the village where litigants are might be cheap than bringing a whole clan or so many people to the courts. Therefore, we need to provide that the CJ will have the jurisdiction to decide where each case will be listened to instead of designating a particular building where all the litigants will be going. The court can be flexible like it is these days where judges or magistrates drive all the way to the prisons for case mentions, instead of transporting all the prisoners to the law courts. That really saves on time and costs. On the issue of the qualifications of an adjudicator, I agree that an adjudicator must be somebody who is learned. However, the adjudicator should be a person of integrity and well The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}