Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 970122,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/970122/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 105,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Charles Njenga",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "That is the prescription of the Standing Orders. What is the factual reality of these proceedings? It is conceded by the Mover, that the Motion was introduced on the 3rd December, 2019. It is also conceded and the Communication is clear from the Speaker that that Motion was argued and disposed of on the 19th of December, 2019. That was well outside the Standing Orders of the Kiambu County Assembly which provides for a 14 days period limitation. If it is not disposed of within 14 days, then that Motion is no longer tenable, sustainable or arguable as a Motion under Standing Order No.82 and capable of activating the proceedings for the removal of the governor. Having said that, allow me to retract a bit on the issue of timelines and say that in evaluating how time is calculated for purposes of statutory interpretation, there are two ways. First, there are Statutes which provide within themselves on how time should be interpreted. In default of such provision, the Senate or any other judicial, quasi judicial or any other arbitral organ seized of a matter regarding time has to look at Chapter 2 of our laws which provides for interpretation and general provisions. Section 57 clearly provides that: “Where a thing is to be done within a specific number of days those days are exclusive from the day in which the event runs to the day to which that event should have been done within the time given. This means that when the Senate was served and seized of this resolution on 23rd of December, 2019, the law says, seven days, which should have expired on 31stDecember, 2019 unless that Statute provides jurisdiction to extend that time, then it cannot be extended. The analogy I gave is on electoral petitions where some of you participated and instructed some of us to act for you. The law is clear. In fact, the Supreme Court said in the case of Hon. Lemanken Aramat that the jurisdiction of the court to hear is inherently tied to the issue of time. Once a breach of this strict scheme of timelines is done, it removes the entire dispute from the jurisdiction of the court."
}