Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 602257,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/602257/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 197,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kajwang'",
    "speaker_title": "The Temporary Deputy Chairman",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2712,
        "legal_name": "Tom Joseph Kajwang'",
        "slug": "kajwang-tom-joseph-francis"
    },
    "content": " Member for Kipipiri, so as to carry you along with us, if you look at the text of this amendment, you will see that the Mover is proposing to change the words so that the issue of compensation can be within the jurisdiction of the High Court as determination of redress and interpretation remains within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. If you think about it, you will see that even if that amendment were not carried, the Bill would remain as it is. This means that the magistrates will still be handling claims for compensation for loss and damage. You cannot compensate for loss and damage before you make a determination that there is a violation. In other words, they will still need to determine that there is violation. This will not help the issue that state counsel will be in the Magistrates’ Courts. One way or the other, state counsel will be in the Magistrates’ Courts. The spirit would be that, since the magistrate is a trained lawyer, even without state counsel in his court, he should be able to make a determination that there is violation and infringement. That is where we are. We either amend it or leave it as it is. One way or the other, you will still need state counsel in those courts."
}