Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 895942,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/895942/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 128,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Homa Bay Town, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Peter Kaluma",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1565,
        "legal_name": "George Peter Opondo Kaluma",
        "slug": "george-peter-opondo-kaluma"
    },
    "content": "The PAC sat on this matter. I want to thank them for very good findings, taking evidence from everybody and very good observations. If you look at pages 120 through to 126 of the PAC Report, they are dealing with the company called IDEMIA Limited. It is this IDEMIA Limited with previously was called SAFRAN Securities & Identities Limited. Before that, it was OT Morpho. Before that, it was Morpho. It is the transactions relating to procurement of technology which was being investigated. At page 126, the Committee, having listened to the foreign directors of IDEMIA, confirmed that by the time IEBC entered into contract with it for the provision of those technological services, IDEMIA had not sought registration and was not registered as a company in Kenya. On the face of it, IDEMIA could not be a company capable of doing business in Kenya within the meaning of Section 974(1) as read together with other provisions that I have mentioned – sections 975 and 979. What I am picking from those provisions is that for a foreign company to do business in Kenya, beyond the fact that it should be registered with the Registrar of Companies, it must also have a local representative. There should be other local considerations in its composition and shareholding. All these are confirmed at page 126 of the Committee’s Report not to have been so. I am merely picking from the Committee’s observations having listened to all the testimonies that were adduced before it. Because our Standing Orders expect that the recommendations will pick from the observations, we find that the company could not do business in Kenya. In the light of the law, we should proceed to proffer the criminal and legal consequences. The criminal consequence, of course, is in section 974(3). Generally in law, when a non-entity…For a company not registered in Kenya, it is not a recognised entity for doing business. This is a contract which in law is vitiated by illegality. If a contract is vitiated by illegality, it is un-enforceable. The other recommendations we are drawing is that beyond being found criminally culpable, the people who are investigating this matter should also pursue civil consequences. The civil consequences are that a contract that is vitiated by illegality like this one cannot be enforced. If any money has passed under such a contract, that money has to be recovered. I am proposing a recommendation not departing from the findings of the Committee and their observations that we do not only pursue criminal penalty, but also proceed to the level of recovering any monies paid to this company because they were illegally paid. Any contracts that they have entered into in the time they were not registered should be cancelled. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}