Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 663432,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/663432/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 108,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Waiganjo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2644,
        "legal_name": "John Muriithi Waiganjo",
        "slug": "john-muriithi-waiganjo"
    },
    "content": "because this Authority has not brought regulations to the Committee on Delegated Legislation where I sit. They are, therefore, operating without regulations. Clause 78 of the Bill is a duplication because it prescribes sentences that contradict already existing statutes. If we are to pass this Bill with these clauses, then we will contradict the Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Traffic Act. We need to amend this area. Section 79 of the Bill creates other offences. For instance, if you are found within the compound of an Authority, then there is a sentence. If you entered an Authority’s compound, then that is trespass which is covered in a different statute. It has a prescribed penalty, but Clause 79 of the Bill still purports to create a penalty which contradicts what is in the Penal Code. If these amendments are not carried out, then under the Kenya Roads Bill, the offence of trespass has a different penalty from the one prescribed by the Penal Code. That is a clear contradiction. I will be seeking to make some amendments. Under Clause 79(b)(ii) of the Bill, if a person is in a state of intoxication or behaves in a violent or offensive manner to the annoyance of any other person, that is an offence. Under ordinary legislation, that offence is drunk and disorderly, but they bring it here and give a different penalty. We cannot have contradictory statutes in the manner in which they penalise, prescribe or define an offence. Another interesting offence is “cause injury to any person on such premises or upon such vehicle”. In ordinary statutes, this is vandalism. Clauses 78 and 79 of the Bill need serious amendments, so that they do not contradict existing statutes. Clause 84 of the Bill also flies in the face of the civil proceedings and related statutes. It flies on the face of the Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Rules, Government Procedure Act, Auctioneers Act and Limitation of Actions Act. Why is that so? The Authority is creating a process that is already prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code. When the Authority says that you cannot execute or attach its properties in the event of litigation, they are interfering with the Civil Procedure Code which is clear on the manner of execution. We cannot repeat them here because Order No.22 of the Civil Procedure Code talks of execution of decrees and orders. It clearly lays out the mode of paying money under decree or out of court, execution of decree by another court, execution in foreign jurisdictions and execution by joint decree order. They are trying to import provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and Civil Procedure Rules and impose them here thereby creating a serious contradiction. I will be seeking to amend this area. Clause 85 of the Bill is on summons. The Bill is trying to create a situation where if you take the Authority to court, for instance, if you had a contract with the KeNSRA or KeNHA, take them to court, you win the case and you are awarded in that litigation, they are purporting a different route other than the one prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code and Civil Procedure Rules in the manner in which you serve pleadings and raise notice with them. The provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules and the Civil Procedure Act are clear on serving of summons and the processes of serving pleadings on you. This Bill cannot purport to take over the provisions of existing statutes. Clause 86 of the Bill is strange. It talks about judgment and how you can realise your award after the judgment. It says that the Director-General must write and permit an auctioneer to go and execute. That is also contradictory. I will be seeking to carry out those amendments. I support this Bill. It is a progressive Bill and will remove contradictions between the counties and the national Government in the manner in which we run our road infrastructure. I would like to congratulate the Government for carrying out wide ranging infrastructure which shows that the country is moving forward. 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."
}