[2013] KEHC 6061 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6061 (KLR)

The court found that the Petitioner did not provide written consent for the publication of his name and photograph alongside his HIV status, as required by Section 22 of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act. The evidence presented by the Respondents regarding consent was inconsistent and unreliable. The publication by the Respondents, therefore, constituted a violation of the Petitioner's constitutional rights to privacy under Article 31 and to human dignity under Article 28. The court further held that, although the matter could have been pursued as a civil claim, the constitutional questions raised justified the court's jurisdiction. The Petitioner failed to strictly prove...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 6061 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: C.O.M.; Respondent: The Standard Group Limited; Respondent: Augustino Oduor
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 April 2013
Case Number
Petition 192 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Right to Privacy, Right to Human Dignity, Media Ethics, Hiv Status Disclosure
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Right to Privacy Right to Human Dignity Media Ethics Hiv Status Disclosure

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.O.M.

Petitioner

The Standard Group Limited

Respondent

Augustino Oduor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents violated the Petitioner's right to privacy under Article 31 of the Constitution by publishing his HIV status, name, and photograph without written consent.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents infringed the Petitioner's right to human dignity under Article 28 of the Constitution by disclosing his HIV status.
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioner is entitled to compensation or other remedies for the alleged violations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Petitioner did not provide written consent for the publication of his name and photograph alongside his HIV status, as required by Section 22 of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act. The evidence presented by the Respondents regarding consent was inconsistent and unreliable. The publication by the Respondents, therefore, constituted a violation of the Petitioner's constitutional rights to privacy under Article 31 and to human dignity under Article 28. The court further held that, although the matter could have been pursued as a civil claim, the constitutional questions raised justified the court's jurisdiction. The Petitioner failed to strictly prove...

Court Disposition

Petition partly allowed.

Orders

  • The Respondents are found to have violated the Petitioner's rights to privacy and dignity.
  • The Petitioner is awarded KES 1,500,000 as compensation for the breaches cited and proved.