Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 602254,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/602254/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 194,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Kanyua",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 981,
        "legal_name": "Priscilla Nyokabi Kanyua",
        "slug": "priscilla-nyokabi-kanyua"
    },
    "content": "On Clause 22(b), Hon. Kaluma appears to be removing the limitation that had earlier been put in the Bill on Articles 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51. Although we have difficulties around this new introduction, the language can pass. What I want to put on record as far as the interpretation is concerned is that the Committee is very clear that Magistrates’ Courts must have some jurisdiction on human rights matters so that such matters do not have to go to the High Court all the time. Some human rights matters can be handled by the Magistrates’ Courts where the pecuniary jurisdiction of magistrates has been put in this law. To the extent of that pecuniary jurisdiction, a Magistrate’s Court can handle human rights matters. The question we have today is whether compensation can be awarded at the magistracy level or it will have to go to the High Court. The clauses, as drafted, suggest that a Magistrate’s Court can determine that a right has been violated. If you need compensation, because the power of interpreting the Constitution is only given to the High Court, on a question of how much compensation you need, you will have to go to the High Court. The Magistrate’s Court determines that your right has been violated. If you need any compensation, you need to go to the High Court. To that extent, I support the clauses and I would allow them to pass."
}