Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 590332,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/590332/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 271,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Oyugi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 444,
        "legal_name": "Augostinho Neto Oyugi",
        "slug": "augostinho-neto-oyugi"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I can bring a small claim case to your court so that we can articulate the matter between me and Hon. Tiya Galgalo. This is because I was not actually out of order. Clause 23 talks about procedure and how to bring in authenticated documents on claims being made. This takes away the ease with which the small claims courts ought to work. We have said very good things about the exclusion of the rule of evidence. There is a clause which talks about not having rules of evidence in the small claim courts. It makes no sense to then include a rigorous procedure of filing claims and doing such heavy paper work like it happens in ordinary court process. Clause 21 needs to be re-phrased so that apart from just writing in English, Kiswahili or any other appropriate language, we take justice closer to the people by saying in black and white that proceedings in these particular courts shall be conducted in mother tongue. If at all you are having small claims about little things like a goat and small monies, since the litigants will not have any particular legal representatives, they ought not be subjected to formal languages. If they wish to speak in the Kamba language, they should be allowed to do so. Likewise, if they wish to speak in the Luo language, they should be allowed to do so. That ought to be expressed in terms of what the language of the court ought to be so that we do not talk about English and Kiswahili. When people wish to express themselves in their mother tongue, such language should be admissible as a language of the court. There is a little contradiction in Clause 9, which speaks to the registrar having power to enforce court decrees. This provision does not read very well with Clause 39, which describes the manner in which decrees can be expedited and makes reference to Clause 9(c) – which says that the register shall be enforcing the decisions of the court. There is a slight contradiction there. The best way forward is to expressly leave the execution of decrees to Clause 39. However, that can be dealt with through amendment. Clause 10 also speaks to a little bit of a strain as it presupposes that an adjudicator can rule over the registrar of the court. This creates conflict between an adjudicator and a registrar. The registrar is the one who enforces court decisions. Therefore, there is discordance in that particular provision. The other thing is about the provision for appointment of an adjudicator. An adjudicator appointed under Clause 6(3) shall serve on such terms as maybe indicated in the list of appointment. There ought to be provision for express terms of service for an adjudicator, so that terms of service for an adjudicator are left to the whims of the person appointing adjudicators from time to time. Express terms of service will enable an adjudicator to know what time to serve because if at all--- 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."
}