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

JOO v PH & another (Tribunal Case 010 of 2021) [2024] KEHAT 846 (KLR) (31 May 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEHAT 846 (KLR) KEHAT
Read PDF
Court
KEHAT
Case number
846
Citation
[2024] KEHAT 846 (KLR)
Decided
31 May 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeHIV and AIDS Prevention and Control ActPostureAppeal from a decision of the HIV and AIDS TribunalCoramJAOKO, CAROLYNE MBOKU, BRIAN. O. YOGO, NELSON . W. OSIEMO, WALTER . G. JAOKO (Prof.), JANE. N. NGOIRI, SOLOMON . K. MUSANI, IRENE . N. MUKUI
Holding

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not obtain the Claimant's informed consent to be tested for HIV, violating section 14 of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act. The Claimant is awarded Kes. 650,000 in costs of the suit.

Facts

The Claimant, JOO, presented for an annual medical checkup at the 1st Respondent's health facility. The 2nd Respondent, a health care worker, asked for consent to test the Claimant for HIV, which he declined. The 2nd Respondent proceeded to test the Claimant without obtaining his consent.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant consented to be tested for HIV?
  2. Whether the Claimant was compelled to test for HIV?
  3. Whether the Claimant was offered HIV pre-test and post-test counseling?
  4. Whether the Claimant's HIV status was disclosed to third parties?
  5. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought?

Reasoning

The Tribunal determined that the Claimant did not consent to the HIV test and that the Respondent did not offer pre-test and post-test counseling, both in violation of the Act.

Outcome

The Claimant is awarded costs of the suit.

Orders

  • Award of costs of the suit to the Claimant

Remedies

  • Award of costs of the suit to the Claimant

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act
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