Justus Somoire Beta
Read this first — limitations.
- Patterns reflect published decisions only.
- This is not an assessment of private character, integrity or bias.
- Outcome distributions are per case-type and not comparable across courts/years.
- Based on 14 decision(s); small samples are indicative only.
- Name normalization is automatic and may merge or split judges incorrectly.
Main subject areas
Activity
Published decisions from 2020 to 2022; busiest year 2020 (7 decisions).
Documented outcomes by case type
- Civil: Affirmed (2); The Respondents are found to have disclosed the Claimant’s H (1); The Tribunal found in favor of the Claimant. (1); The Respondent is ordered to pay damages and other remedies (1)
- Discrimination Case: Denied (1)
- Employment and Labour: Affirmed (1)
- HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act: The cause is dismissed with no orders as to costs (1)
- HIV and AIDS Tribunal: In favor of the Claimant (1)
Counts are per published decision as classified by AI; not comparable across courts or years.
Most-cited legislation
- HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2006 (4)
- HIV & AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2006 (3)
- HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, Cap 246A (1)
- HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act 2011 (HAPCA) (1)
- HIV and AIDS Prevention & Control Act, 2006 (1)
- HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act (1)
- HAPCA (HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act) 2006 (1)
Documented reasoning patterns
- Most common procedural postures: Appeal from the original trial (4), Appeal from an original trial (3), Appeal from an original trial judgment (1)
- [Civil] outcomes — Affirmed: 2/7, The Respondents are found to have disclosed the Claimant’s HIV status without her consent and to have caused stigmatization and harassment.: 1/7, The Tribunal found in favor of the Claimant.: 1/7, The Respondent is ordered to pay damages and other remedies to the Claimant.: 1/7
- [HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act] outcomes — The cause is dismissed with no orders as to costs: 1/1
- [HIV and AIDS Tribunal] outcomes — In favor of the Claimant: 1/1
- [HIV & AIDS Discrimination Case] outcomes — The Respondent was ordered to pay damages for the impairment of dignity, emotional, physical and psychological suffering.: 1/1
- [Discrimination Case] outcomes — Denied: 1/1
Writing characteristics
- Median judgment length ~24674 words
- Includes panel decisions
Remedy patterns
- General damages (2)
- Declaration of disclosure (1)
- Damages for testing the Claimant without her consent (1)
- Damages for testing the Claimant without pre-test or post-test counselling (1)
- Damages for the breach of confidentiality, unlawful disclosure, impairment of dignity, emotional and psychological suffering (1)
Citation patterns
- Avg cited authorities/decision: 1.6
- Frequently applied statutes: HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2006 (4), HIV & AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2006 (3), HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, Cap 246A (1), HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act 2011 (HAPCA) (1), HIV and AIDS Prevention & Control Act, 2006 (1)
Sample decisions
M A O v S M & H M [2020] KEHAT 101 (KLR)
KEHAT · [2020] KEHAT 101 (KLR) · 26 May 2020
EOD v OC & another [2020] KEHAT 110 (KLR)
KEHAT · [2020] KEHAT 110 (KLR) · 4 May 2020
SM v ENA [2020] KEHAT 145 (KLR)
KEHAT · [2020] KEHAT 145 (KLR)
M.A.O v S. M & another [2020] KEHAT 17 (KLR)
KEHAT · [2020] KEHAT 17 (KLR) · 26 May 2020
RAO v MGH & 2 others [2020] KEHAT 39 (KLR)
KEHAT · [2020] KEHAT 39 (KLR) · 27 November 2020
JK v AAR Healthcare Kenya Ltd [2020] KEHAT 40 (KLR)
KEHAT · [2020] KEHAT 40 (KLR) · 6 November 2020
J K v AAR Healthcare Kenya Ltd [2020] KEHAT 44 (KLR)
KEHAT · [2020] KEHAT 44 (KLR)
GGOO v MOA [2021] KEHAT 624 (KLR)
KEHAT · [2021] KEHAT 624 (KLR)
PM v TK (Tribunal Case 32 of 2019) [2021] KEHAT 671 (KLR) (25 June 2021) (Ruling)
KEHAT · [2021] KEHAT 671 (KLR) · 25 June 2021
SNW v FNN & another (Cause 001 of 2021) [2021] KEHAT 672 (KLR) (6 July 2021) (Judgment)
KEHAT · [2021] KEHAT 672 (KLR) · 6 July 2021