SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

BAO v China Henan International Co-operation Group Co. Ltd [2021] KEHAT 86 (KLR)

[2021] KEHAT 86 (KLR) KEHAT
Read PDF
Court
KEHAT
Case number
86
Citation
[2021] KEHAT 86 (KLR)
Decided
3 December 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTribunalPostureClaimant vs RespondentCoramHelene Namisi (Chairperson), Melissa Ng'ania, Justus T. Somoire, Dr. Maryanne Ndonga, Tusmo Jama, Dorothy Kimengech
Holding

The Respondent is vicariously liable for the actions of [Particulars Withheld] Healthcare Limited, and the Claimant is entitled to damages for forced HIV testing, breach of privacy, and other reliefs.

Facts

The Claimant was forced to undergo HIV testing by Respondent's agents on March 5, 2021, and later had the test retaken under duress. The Claimant was subsequently dismissed and faced discrimination.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant was compelled to undergo HIV testing without informed consent.
  2. Whether the HIV test was preceded by pre-test counselling and followed by post-test counselling.
  3. Whether the Respondent unlawfully disclosed the Claimant’s HIV status.
  4. Whether the Claimant was discriminated against based on her HIV status.
  5. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that the Respondent is vicariously liable for the actions of its agent, and that the Claimant was not given informed consent prior to the testing.

Outcome

The Respondent is ordered to pay damages and other reliefs to the Claimant.

Orders

  • The Respondent is ordered to pay damages and other reliefs to the Claimant.

Remedies

  • Damages and other reliefs to the Claimant.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • CNM –vs- The Karen Hospital Ltd, HAT No. 08 of 2015 (unreported)
  • Messina Associated Carriers –vs- Kleinhaus [2001] 3 All SA 285 (SCA)
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case