School boss to pay ex-worker Sh500k for revealing HIV status

The HIV and AIDS Tribunal has ordered a school director to pay Sh500,000 in damages for unlawfully disclosing the perceived HIV status of a former employee.

Tribunal chairperson Carolyne Mboku ruled that the disclosure amounted to a breach of confidentiality under the law.

The case was filed in March 2024 by MAO, the mother of a minor enrolled at BRK Limited, and BP, the minor.

MAO accused the school and one of its directors, identified as MAA, of unlawfully revealing her HIV status to a colleague, causing her emotional distress and contributing to discrimination against both herself and her child.

The claim sought orders restraining further disclosure, a written apology, damages and costs.

According to evidence presented by the claimants, MAO had disclosed her HIV status to MAA in confidence when she was employed by the school in April 2022.

On September 15, 2023, MAA called a teacher, CW2, to question him about alleged rumours of a romantic relationship between him and MAO.

In a recorded phone call played during the hearing, MAA was heard making statements implying that MAO had contracted HIV and warning CW2 that he risked infection if he pursued a relationship with her.

The tribunal noted that in the recording, MAA referenced MAO leaving her “HIV-positive husband” and made further remarks linking MAO to the virus.

The claimants argued that MAA repeated these disclosures in a staff meeting held on September 18, 2023, fuelling workplace gossip and exposing the minor to stigma among fellow pupils.

They testified that the minor was asked by other children whether she was “also sick,” which they said affected her emotionally.

BRK Limited and MAA denied the allegations, insisting that the recorded discussion referred only to the HIV status of MAO’s husband, not MAO herself.

Three witnesses for the respondents, including the school’s head and deputy, also denied that MAO’s health status had been discussed during the staff meeting.

They testified that the meeting focused solely on alleged misconduct relating to the rumoured relationship between the two employees.

The respondents further produced the minor’s academic records to show she had not been discriminated against or adversely affected at school.

During cross-examination, however, MAA admitted that the voice in the recording was hers and conceded that she had mentioned MAO’s HIV status to CW2.

In its 38-page decision, the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over claims involving disclosure of HIV status under the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, though it noted it could not determine alleged violations of the Bill of Rights.

After reviewing the six-minute recording in full, the Tribunal found that MAA’s remarks amounted to disclosure of MAO’s perceived HIV status to a third party without consent, a conduct prohibited by section 22 of HAPCA.

The tribunal, however, found no evidence proving that MAO or the minor suffered discrimination or stigma at school.

It held that none of the staff witnesses confirmed that the alleged disclosure occurred during the staff meeting and that the minor’s assessment results did not indicate any decline tied to stigma.

The panel also found no fault on the part of BRK Limited, ruling that the institution itself did not engage in any discriminatory conduct.

As a result, the tribunal dismissed the case against the school but entered judgment against MAA, issuing an order restraining her from further disclosure and awarding the claimants Sh500,000 in general damages, plus costs and interest.