Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 641818,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/641818/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 284,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Gichigi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1909,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Kamunye Gichigi",
        "slug": "samuel-kamunye-gichigi"
    },
    "content": "Clause 15 says that even if it is a first registration, and it was fraudulent; if it is discovered that there was a misrepresentation and the land was acquired illegally, the court can cancel that registration. If somebody says that they are going to oppose the entire law, I do not know what they mean. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, we have other provisions. For instance, Clause 20 talks about transactions that are in the offing. If the person buying land does a search and notifies the registrar that they are negotiating and are in the process of buying some piece of land, the dealings that are contrary to that particular transaction will be suspended for 14 days so that somebody does not pick money from one buyer and rush to sell that land to another person. This Bill has good provisions in as much as it has some provisions that are challenging. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I will be proposing an amendment because the Bill says that land that requires consent before dispositions can be registered and the registrar can dispense of it with that consent. The law does not provide for circumstances under which that should be done. The reasons are not given and there is no requirement for the person who is likely to be prejudiced by such dispensation to give consent by notification. It is, therefore, important that a clause like this be amended. I will also propose an amendment to Clause 24. Ordinarily, when a document is signed abroad, the law requires a notary public – that is a senior or certified advocate to be a witness. This law is now proposing that the CS can now prescribe any other witness. We need clarity because we do not want any person from the streets to claim to be a witness. This law now proposes that the CS can prescribe any other witness. We need clarity because we do not want any other person from the street to claim that the witness has a serious document. I will, therefore, be proposing an amendment to this provision. Clause 29 is also a good law. What happens now is that if you register a caution or a restriction against land, it bars all types of transactions. This clause is good because it says you can go and apply for registration of a partial restriction on a certain interest only while the other dealings can be registered. It is a good Bill and we should not oppose it. Clause 35 also needs some clarity. It says that in a transfer of title where two or more people are buying or receiving land or an interest in land, if the law does not say whether you own jointly or separately in what we call tenancy in common, the law is then proposing that the Registrar is going to indicate that you own as owners in common. My proposal would be that there is clarity. The provision should tell us whether it is a joint ownership or tenancy in common. Clause 45 shows how historical injustices can be dealt with. Clause 47 also requires an amendment because it may be prejudicial to squatters since it requires all sorts of approvals from authorities. I support the Bill subject to amendments."
}