[2015] KEHAT 7 (KLR)

[2015] KEHAT 7 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that while the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2006, specifically addresses discrimination in public spheres, section 3 infers jurisdiction to address discrimination in all forms, including within the home. However, the evidence did not support the claim that the respondent’s conduct was motivated by the claimant’s HIV status; rather, the issues stemmed from longstanding matrimonial disputes unrelated to HIV. Therefore, the claim of discrimination failed. Nonetheless, the Tribunal held that the respondent unlawfully disclosed the claimant’s HIV status to his brother, violating her right to privacy under section 22(1)(a) of the Act. This breach of...

Citation
[2015] KEHAT 7 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: JM; Respondent: HM
Court
HIV and AIDS Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Case Number
Tribunal Case 066 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Application / Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed. Claim for discrimination dismissed. Claim for unlawful disclosure upheld. Damages and costs awarded to claimant.
Judges
JO Arwa, A Siparo, M Deche, MN Kullow, S Bosire, J Muriuki, J Kyambi
Legal Topics
Hiv Status Discrimination, Confidentiality Breach, Matrimonial Disputes
Source Language
English
Family and Children Civil Procedure Hiv Status Discrimination Confidentiality Breach Matrimonial Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JM

Applicant

HM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent’s acts and behavior amounted to discrimination against the claimant based on her HIV status.
  2. 2 Whether there was breach of confidentiality from the unlawful disclosure of the claimant’s HIV status by the respondent.
  3. 3 What damages, if any, were payable to the claimant and the appropriate order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that while the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2006, specifically addresses discrimination in public spheres, section 3 infers jurisdiction to address discrimination in all forms, including within the home. However, the evidence did not support the claim that the respondent’s conduct was motivated by the claimant’s HIV status; rather, the issues stemmed from longstanding matrimonial disputes unrelated to HIV. Therefore, the claim of discrimination failed. Nonetheless, the Tribunal held that the respondent unlawfully disclosed the claimant’s HIV status to his brother, violating her right to privacy under section 22(1)(a) of the Act. This breach of...

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed. Claim for discrimination dismissed. Claim for unlawful disclosure upheld. Damages and costs awarded to claimant.

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay the claimant Kshs. 150,000 for unlawful disclosure of HIV status.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs of the suit to the claimant.