Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 590811,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/590811/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 111,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Wahome",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1700,
        "legal_name": "Alice Muthoni Wahome",
        "slug": "alice-muthoni-wahome"
    },
    "content": "factor that continues to dog our courts or to affect the justice system is the fact that in criminal cases, you will find that persons who have been convicted by the High Court or other lower courts stay for very long periods before their cases are heard. You will find that people are serving unnecessary terms of five or 10 years before their cases are mentioned in those courts. We have agreed that justice delayed is justice denied. If one has been convicted and has to wait for more than five years for their case to be dealt with, then we shall not have done anything even if we come up with all these Bills. There must be a way to assist those courts through legislation and provisions to ensure that cases are dispensed with as quickly as possible when they are mentioned before the Court. It is no longer acceptable for an accused person who has been convicted to wait for his appeal to be heard for over 10 years. That also applies to commercial cases and other cases in terms of legal and civil litigation. Cases take unnecessarily long to be disposed of. One determining factor was that the rules of practice and procedure have been technical. We must encourage this Court to avoid rules that will allow a case to be lost merely because of technicalities. I am aware of Article 159 that discourages a case being lost because of undue regard to technicalities that do not go to the substance of the subject matter that is before the Court. Previously, the courts have been happy to dismiss matters because of those kinds of considerations. I will be very keen to look at the rules because the president of this Court has been mandated to prepare the rules of practice. Clause 13(2) states that without prejudice and in consultation with the Chief Justice, he has been allowed to issue practice directions and conduct of litigation in that Court. I am happy that we have not come up with any rules that restrict advocates who are young so that they can also sharpen their skills in this Court. With regard to the process of removing the president of the Court, Clause 15 is one that we should encourage very much. I support the fact that if the president of the Court neglects duty, Clause 15 requires he should be removed. He is mandated by this law to ensure that general neglect of duty is not accepted. Failure to satisfactorily discharge their responsibilities shall cause a person who is the president of the Court to be removed. If the president of the Court gives no direction or leadership to this Court, then dispensation of justice shall be affected. That is a provision that was not there before. As I said before, the appointment of presidents of the court in our courts before has been made on the basis of other considerations. The fact that the same judges are then able to remove the president of the court for non-performance is a good thing. It is obvious that this Court will sit outside Nairobi. The president will be in Nairobi, but we will have other courts in other parts of the country. We must look at the litigation cases that are now pending before our courts. The Court of Appeal has been moving from Nairobi to other areas of the country. They would sit in Nairobi but then move to other courts. In this Bill, we foresee a situation where we shall have the Court of Appeal sitting permanently in some of our regions. The first thing we must look at is how to decongest our registries. The creation of those courts outside Nairobi must be informed by the pending litigations outside Nairobi and the population in those areas so that we can clear such matters. There is the concern that, up to now, we are litigating the issue of the retirement age of the judges. Because we are discussing this Bill, allow me to speak to that issue. The Constitution of Kenya 2010 has not reserved the retirement age of judges at 70. There is contestation by sitting judges who would like to retire on the basis of the terms of the old Constitution. Kenyans were aware that the previous Constitution set the retirement age at 74 years. However, the new 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."
}