Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 851761,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/851761/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 266,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Murkomen",
    "speaker_title": "The Senate Majority Leader",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 440,
        "legal_name": "Onesimus Kipchumba Murkomen",
        "slug": "kipchumba-murkomen"
    },
    "content": "Committees. One of such position is when it comes to the reference of Section 31 of the Land Act, 2012. That Section is important when it comes to protection of the interests of land owners and in relation to forfeiture of lease, if rent is unpaid or there is a breach of a covenant in a lease. There is a proposed amendment to Section 31(3) of the Land Act, 2012 which says that- ―If the court has declared a lease to be fortified under subsection (2), the Commission may re-enter upon the land.‖ That is once a court has made that declaration. Section 31(4) of the Land Act provides that- ―In exercising the power of granting relief against forfeiture under sub-section (1), the court shall be guided by the principles of the doctrines of equity.‖ Now, there is an amendment to Section 31 which states- ―Despite subsection (4), if the land is required for a public purpose, the court may not grant relief against forfeiture even if the grantor makes good the default.‖ Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, that is also important, but I think there is an extent to which we can direct to the courts in terms of making the discretion of the charge; being a constitutional office holder and final authority interpretation of the law and the Constitution; being directed as to whether or not they can do or not do, grant certain orders or not."
}