REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIV & AIDS TRIBUNAL
AT NAIROBI
H.A.T CAUSE NO. 9 OF 2017
M.A.O. ………………………………....…………………………….. CLAIMANT
VERSUS
S. M……………………………………………………………..1st RESPONDENT
H. M. ……………………………………………………………...2nd RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
A. Introduction
1. By Statement of Claim dated 21st September 2017, the Claimant instituted proceedings herein against the Respondents, seeking the following orders:
(a) A sum of Kshs 15,000/- being the deposit and expenses incurred;
(b) General damages;
(c) A public apology by the Respondents to the Claimant;
(d) Costs of this suit;
(e) Any other or further remedy that this Court shall deem fit to grant.
2. Briefly, the Claimant was a tenant of the 1st Respondent, while the 2nd Respondent was the Claimant’s neighbour within the premises. The Claimant avers that around March or April 2017, the 2nd Respondent came to learn of the Claimant’s status. Subsequently, the Claimant began insulting and verbally abusing the Claimant in public about her status, and in particular, within the premises where they both reside, in the presence of the Claimant’s children.
3. The Claimant further avers that on 30th March 2017, a few days after the 2nd Respondent began spreading rumours about the Claimant, the 1st Respondent paid Kshs 7,500/- to the 1st Respondent in respect of her rent. However, on 1st April 2017, the 1st Respondent refunded Kshs 5,000/- to the Claimant and demanded that the Claimant vacate the premises before the 5th day of April 2017. The Claimant avers that this action was triggered by the fact that the Claimant is living with HIV, since no other reason was provided by the 1st Respondent for the said eviction.
4. Further, it is the Claimant’s averment that thereafter, the 1st Respondent’s agent proceeded to lock the Claimant’s premises and remove the roof to the house, which conduct was discriminatory and embarrassing, leading to the Claimant’s stigmatization. The Claimant’s claim against the 1st Respondent is that she never received her rent deposit, has suffered loss as a result of the eviction and having to make arrangements to secure her property, and incurred financial loss due to her absence from work during that period.
5. In response to the claim, the Respondents filed their Response to Statement of Claim dated 31st October 2017. The 2nd Respondent denies knowledge of the Claimant’s status and alleges that the Claimant’s claim against her is brought in bad faith. According to the 2nd Respondent, this cause is a witch hunt against the 2nd Respondent following a dispute between the Claimant and 2nd Respondent because the Claimant was selling water to outsiders, which water was to be used by the tenants within the premises. The 2nd Respondent avers that the Claimant teamed up with her daughter to fabricate lies against the 2nd Respondent in order to teach the 2nd Respondent a lesson.
6. In denying the allegations against him, the 1st Respondent avers that he never dealt with the Claimant directly but rather through his caretaker at the premises. He has no knowledge of the Claimant's status, and his decision to refund the Claimant’s money and request her to vacate was because the Claimant was a rent defaulter, having defaulted for 3 previous consecutive months.
7. The 1st Respondent further denies removing the roof of the house or locking the Claimant’s house. On the contrary, the 1st Respondent avers that the Claimant destroyed property and misused resources within the premises, including selling water which was meant for use by other tenants within the plot.
B: The Evidence
8. The Claimant called 3 witnesses, namely, herself, M. A and B. A. O. The Claimant adopted her Witness Statement filed on 20th November 2017. The Claimant testified that at all times material to the case, she resided in the 1st Respondent’s house, in Dandora Phase 4, where the 2nd Respondent was her neighbour. During the month of March 2017, the 2nd Respondent somehow learnt of the Claimant’s status and consequently began hurling insults and verbal abuse at the Claimant.
9. The Claimant testified that on one particular instance, the 2nd Respondent told the Claimant that since she was HIV positive, she should go and die elsewhere. This happened at about 2pm, and two other ladies were present during the altercation which happened outside the Claimant’s house.
10. It is the Claimant’s testimony that thereafter, on 30th March 2017, the Claimant sent Kshs 7,500/- to the 1st Respondent, their landlord, being payment of rent. On 1st April 2017, the Claimant received Kshs 5,000/- sent back by the 1st Respondent, although there was no reason given for the refund. The Claimant testified that when she tried calling the 1st Respondent to inquire about the refund, the 1st Respondent did not answer his phone. The Claimant tried messaging him, to no avail. Instead, the 1st Respondent sent someone, the agent, to remove the roof and lock the door to the Claimant’s house.
11. The Claimant testified that there was no one in the house at the time the roof was removed or the door locked. The Claimant was forced to break into the house to gain access. She stated that she summoned one Josephine to come and witness that the roof on her house had been removed. As a result of this action, the Claimant and her children had to seek refuge elsewhere. Eventually, the Claimant vacated from the premises later that month.
12. In proof of her testimony, the Claimant produced four documents into evidence. The first is an Order to Attend dated 4th April 2017 from the Chief, Dandora B Location which is addressed to the 1st Respondent. The second is an extract of the text message sent by the 1st Respondent to the Claimant on 1st April 2017 at 9.45 pm which reads as follows: “ Lips Nyman inline n. a. pests Hilo n. a uhame hame tarehe 5/4/2017”. Third document is an extract of the Claimant’s Mpesa Statement indicating the amount sent to the 1st Respondent and the sum refunded by the 1st Respondent on 1st April 2017. The final document is a receipt of Kshs 25/- in respect of the Mpesa Statement.
13. On cross examination, the Claimant stated that the insults by the 2nd Respondent has been after the Claimant’s house had been locked by the 1st Respondent. The Claimant filed a report at the Kinyago Police Station with respect to the insults by the 2nd Respondent. This was on or about 9th April 2017. The Claimant further stated that the 1st Respondent had locked her house on 4 previous occasions, but each time, the Claimant would remove the padlock. The monthly rent is Ksh 2,500/-. The Claimant clarified that she sent Kshs 7,500/-, being rent for 3 months, specifically, rent arrears for 2 months and rent for the current month. The 1st Respondent did not say anything to the Claimant when he refunded the money, save for the text message. The message itself did not disclose a reason for the notice to vacate.
14. The Claimant testified that prior to vacating the premises on 15th April 2017, she had resided there for 10 years. Upon her vacating the premises, the roof on the house was restored. The Claimant averred that Josephine took photographs of the roofless house, although the same were not produced before the Tribunal. The Claimant stated that she has never visited hospital in the company of the 2nd Respondent, neither has she shown the 2nd Respondent any document relating to her health, nor disclosed her status to the 2nd Respondent. The Claimant has known the Respondents for about 4 and 6 years, respectively.
15. CW2, M.A, testified that she is a Community Health Worker and resides in Dandora. CW2 is acquainted with the Claimant, who is her client and a neighbour. The Respondents are familiar to CW2 although she does not know their names. CW2 adopted her Witness Statement dated 2nd October 2018 as part of her evidence in chief.
16. It was CW2’s testimony that she heard the Claimant being insulted. She could recall hearing the following being uttered by a lady, “Aende akufe huko na ukimwi wake, malaya!” CW2 was able to identify the speaker of the words as the 2nd Respondent. Later, the Claimant called CW2 to come and witness the removal of the roof from her house, which she did. CW2 testified that the Claimant had been locked out of her house and could not enter nor access her medication.
17. On cross examination, CW2 clarified that the distance from her house to the Claimant’s residence was a 5 minute walking distance. CW2 has attended to the Claimant for about 7 years, and would sometimes visit the Claimant at her residence. CW2 stated that she does not know the names of other residents within the premises or the caretaker.
18. CW2 clarified that although she was not present when the argument between the Claimant and 2nd Respondent began, she came later and found a crowd of about 20 people. She did not know the names of the persons present during the altercation. CW2 also did not witness the locking of the house or removal of the roof, but came to the scene after the same had been done. She is aware that the Claimant reported the incident at the Police Station, but she did not accompany the Claimant to the Police Station.
19. CW3, B.A.O, a resident of Dandora Phase 4 and daughter to the Claimant, testified that she knows the Respondents. She adopted the Witness Statement dated 2nd October 2017 as her evidence in chief. CW3 testified although she does not reside in the same house as her mother, the Claimant, the distance between her house and that of the Claimant is about a 5-minute walk. CW3 recalled hearing these insults being hurled at the Claimant, “apeleke malaya mbali. Aende akufie mbali.” There was a crowd present.
20. Two days later, the roof was removed from the Claimant’s house. It was CW3’s testimony that she witnessed this happening. Her child was asleep on the seat in the house and was hit by one of the falling iron sheets. This was done by the agent, the one who collects the rent, and is commonly referred to as Baba Dick. The child was taken to hospital, although CW3 did not have any documents to prove the same. Photographs of the roofless house were taken, but the phone on which they were stored got lost.
21. On cross examination, CW3 testified that the cause of the argument between the Claimant and the 2nd Respondent was because the 2nd Respondent wanted the Claimant to vacate the premises. CW3 corroborated the Claimant’s evidence that no notice to terminate was issued by the 1st Respondent, but rather that the same was done via text message. CW3 confirmed that the Claimant has never been prevented from using the communal bathroom, toilet or tap within the premises.
22. The 1st Respondent, a priest in the Anglican Church, then began his case by adopting the Witness Statement dated 31st October 2017 as part of his evidence in chief. He confirmed that the Claimant is indeed his tenant at his premises in Dandora, Nairobi. It was 1st Respondent’s testimony that the Claimant left the premises on her volition after a misunderstanding with the caretaker. He had no knowledge of the Claimant’s status until he received the Court documents served upon him. 1st Respondent averred that he has never requested any documents from the Claimant relating to her status, neither has any other person informed him of the Claimant’s status.
23. It is the testimony of the 1st Respondent that the Claimant did send him the rent of Kshs 7,500/-. At the time, the Claimant owed 3 months in rent arrears. He returned part of the amount as goodwill, so that the Claimant could spend it in finding alternative housing. 1st Respondent testified that the Claimant had owed rent since January, and by mid-March 2017, he called the Claimant and gave her a verbal notice to vacate the house.
24. 1st Respondent further testified that the Claimant had been his tenant for 6 years. He would receive reports from the caretaker about the Claimant quarrelling with the neighbours and selling the water supplied to the premises to third parties. He clarified that he has never stopped the Claimant from accessing or using the common facilities within the premises. 1st Respondent denied ever locking the Claimant’s house or removing its roof. Upon her departure, the Claimant dealt with the agent.
25. The 1st Respondent confirmed sending the text message to the Claimant upon receipt of the funds from the Claimant. In the text, he informed the Claimant to vacate the premises by 5th April 2017. The message to the Claimant did not state that the Claimant should leave the premises because of her status. He clarified that the action he took thereafter was to refund part of the sums paid and instructed the caretaker to make a note of when the Claimant vacated the premises. The agent did not have any other instructions.
26. 1st Respondent clarified that he requested the Claimant to leave the premises for two reasons. Firstly, the 1st Respondent had requested the Claimant to sign a tenancy agreement, which she refused to do. She also refused to deal with the caretaker and paid the 1st Respondent directly. Secondly, the Claimant kept quarrelling with the neighbours. Although he did not have any documentary evidence of the second issue, the 1st Respondent relied on the caretaker for this information.
27. The 2nd Respondent, a casual worker residing in Dandora, adopted her Witness Statement dated 31st October 2017 as part of her evidence in chief. She confirmed having knowledge of the Claimant, who was her neighbour for about 6 or so years during which time the two had lived peacefully and amiably.
28. The 2nd Respondent recalled 4th April 2017, a Sunday morning, when she took her laundry out for cleaning. An altercation ensued between the 2nd Respondent and the Claimant, resulting in the Claimant shoving the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd Respondent subsequently pulling off the Claimant’s leso. 2 weeks later, the 2nd Respondent was summoned to Kinyago Police Station, where the Claimant had reported an assault incident. The Claimant alleged that the 2nd Respondent had assaulted her and broken her basin. The Police Officer urged the two ladies to reconcile and directed the 2nd Respondent to replace the Claimant’s basin.
29. In her testimony, the 2nd Respondent denied assaulting and/or insulting the Claimant. She denied knowledge of the Claimant’s status. She further stated that she did not see CW3 or the Claimant’s other children on the day of the incident. Only one neighbour came out during the altercation, RW3. Some of the other neighbours normally leave early in order to attend church services.
30. With respect to the communal facilities, the 2nd Respondent testified that all tenants use the same tap. The Claimant has never been prevented from accessing the tap, although she is in the habit of selling the water to outsiders. The 2nd Respondent denied ever seeing the Claimant’s house locked by anyone other than the Claimant, or the roof having been removed. She confirmed that as far as she knows, no one has ever evicted the Claimant from the premises.
31. RW3, one R.A, a tenant within the premises, adopted her Witness Statement dated 16th March 2018 as part of her evidence in chief. She testified to knowing the parties herein, the Claimant and 2nd Respondent being her neighbours at the premises for over 6 years, during which time they have not lived harmoniously. In her words, the Claimant would often cause disturbances within the premises. On one occasion, RW3 called the 1st Respondent to inform him of the same.
32. RW3 recalled that Sunday morning when she took her water to the bathroom and returned to find that the Claimant had moved the basin. When RW3 made inquiries, the Claimant responded rudely. The Claimant was in the habit of insulting others. Later, as RW3 was mopping her house, she heard screams outside. She peeped outside her window and saw the Claimant and 2nd Respondent engaged in a physical fight. RW3 then ran out to try and separate the fighting ladies, but did not hear any insults being exchanged. There was no one else present.
33. RW3 testified that later in the day, she inquired from the 2nd Respondent about the cause of the fight earlier on. The 2nd Respondent informed her that the Claimant had attacked the 2nd Respondent at the communal bathroom. RW3 confirmed that she did not hear any utterances about the Claimant’s status during the altercation.
34. With respect to the 1st Respondent, RW3 testified that he was like a father to her. He would normally visit the tenants and treat them like his children. He did not discriminate against any of the tenants. She testified that she did not witness the roof removed from the house or the Claimant’s house being locked.
35. The Respondents’ final witness, RW4, is the caretaker/agent of the 1st Respondent. He adopted his Witness Statement dated 29th November 2017 as part of his evidence in chief. RW4 denied that the Claimant was evicted from the premises due to her status, but rather as a result of her rent arrears and the constant commotion with the other tenants within the premises. The Claimant would constantly disagree with the other tenants and also sold the water that was provided for use within the premises. He corroborated the 1st Respondent’s evidence that the Claimant had refused to deal with him but instead chose to deal directly with the 1st Respondent. The notice to vacate was issued by the 1st Respondent.
36. It was RW4’s testimony that the Claimant has never been denied access to the communal facilities within the premises. He also denied removing the roof off of the Claimant’s house or locking the house, stating that the same would be uneconomical. One cannot live in a house without a roof.
37. On the day of the altercation, RW4 was not around when it began, but arrived later to find the two ladies insulting each other. There were about 20 people gathered at the gate.
C: Issues for Determination
38. Both parties filed their respective written submissions via email in March 2020. According to the Claimant, the legal issues for determination by this Tribunal are:
(i) Whether the Respondents discriminated, stigmatized and/or harassed the Claimant as per the Statement of Claim;
(ii) Whether the Respondents disclosed the Claimant’s status without her consent; and
(iii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
39. Having analysed the evidence by the parties and the submissions filed, we concur that these are the issues for determination, with slight modification:
(i) Whether the Respondents disclosed the Claimant’s status to third parties without her consent;
(ii) Whether as a result of the unlawful disclosure the Claimant suffered stigmatisation and/or harassment; and
(iii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
D: Analysis
(i) Whether the Respondents disclosed the Claimant’s status to third parties without her consent
40. Section 22 of HIV & AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2006 (HAPCA) provides, inter alia, that no person shall disclose any information concerning the result of an HIV test or any related assessments of that person. The Claimant herein accuses the 2nd Respondent of having disclosed her status to third parties. In her Statement of Claim, the Claimant avers that the 2nd Respondent learnt about the Claimant’s status from an unknown source, and immediately began verbally abusing and insulting the Claimant in public, and in particular about her HIV status.
41. To prove this allegation, the Claimant called two witnesses, a Community Health Worker and her daughter. Both testified to hearing the 2nd Respondent hurling insults at the Claimant, which insults alluded to the Claimant’s status. Both witnesses also testified that a crowd of people gathered around to witness the commotion between the Claimant and the 2nd Respondent. Although most of the Respondents’ witnesses denied seeing any other person during the altercation, RW4, the caretaker, testified that when he arrived at the premises, he found the altercation ongoing and there was a crowd of about 20 people gathered.
42. In their submissions, the Respondents have relied on a case previously before this Tribunal, BNN –vs- CMM (2019) eKLR, in which the Tribunal observed that it is trite law that the onus of proof is on she who alleges. To obtain relief for violations under HAPCA, particularly that of disclosure of status, the claimant must demonstrate the manner in which the respondent violated these provisions. The Tribunal concurs with this part of the Respondents’ submissions. Similarly, in S.M -vs- E.N.A; HAT NO. 018 of 2018, this Tribunal noted that the claimant’s allegations were uncorroborated, since no witnesses were called to testify that the claimant’s status had been disclosed to them.
43. In this instance, the Claimant’s evidence as to the presence of third parties has been corroborated by the Claimant’s two witnesses as well as RW4, the caretaker. These 3 witnesses have indicated that there were other people present who overheard the insults. Furthermore, all the witnesses, save for 1st Respondent, testified to the occurrence of an altercation, where the Claimant and 2nd Respondent were embroiled in a physical fight. Although one witness, RW3, denies overhearing any exchange of insults, it is difficult to imagine that the two ladies would be engaged in physical confrontation without any exchange of words between them.
44. In view of this, this Tribunal is inclined to conclude that insults were exchanged by the Claimant and 2nd Respondent during the incident, and that the 2nd Respondent made reference to the Claimant’s status, whether real or perceived, thus disclosing the Claimant’s status without her consent.
(ii) Whether as a result of the unlawful disclosure the Claimant suffered stigmatisation and/or harassment;
45. In their submissions, the Respondents contend that the Claimant’s case should fail for the reason that the Claimant has not proved that she is, indeed, a person living with HIV. We strongly disagree with this position. From the wording of section 22, it is clear that the same can be construed to imply both actual and perceived status of a person. The section speaks of disclosing any information concerning the result of an HIV test. (emphasis ours). A result can be either positive, negative or inconclusive. It, therefore, does not matter whether a person is actually HIV positive or not. What matters is how the person is treated as a result of their actual status or the perceived status.
46. Having stated that, this Tribunal noted the evidence by several witnesses that the Claimant was a quarrelsome tenant. Save for CW2 and the Claimant’s daughter, every other witness testified to the fact that the Claimant would engage in quarrels with her neighbours and sold the water intended for use by the tenants. Indeed, RW4 and 1st Respondent testified that the Claimant had refused to deal with the caretaker and instead opted to deal directly with the Landlord, the 1st Respondent. It was the 1st Respondent’s testimony that the Claimant was in the habit of defaulting on rent payment and had even refused to sign the tenancy agreements that had been signed by the other tenants. The Claimant herself admitted that on several occasions when she had failed to pay rent, her house had been locked and she would proceed to remove the padlock. This admission goes to show the kind of troublesome tenant that the Claimant was.
47. In his testimony, the 1st Respondent clearly indicated that the reason he wanted the Claimant out of his premises was due to her quarrelsome nature and the fact that she constantly defaulted in payment of rent. The time frame between the altercation between the Claimant and 2nd Respondent (27th March 2017), the payment of the rent by the Claimant (30th March 2017) and the notice to vacate (1st April 2017) shows no connection between the 1st Respondent’s notice to vacate and his knowledge of the Claimant’s status.
48. The Claimant further claims to have suffered greatly after the roof to the house was removed and her house was locked by RW4, the caretaker. She claims that the action by the 1st Respondent was discriminatory and resulted in her embarrassment and that of her children. To prove her claims, the Claimant called CW2 and her daughter, CW3, to testify to the removal of the roof and locking of the house. In her testimony, the Claimant stated that she called one Josephine to come and witness the removal of the roof, but did not call Josephine as a witness herein. Unfortunately, the photographs taken of the roofless house were lost, and so there is nothing before this Tribunal to substantiate that claim. Interestingly, the evidence by the Claimant and CW3 regarding the roof issue contradicted. Whilst the Claimant testified that there was no one in the house when the roof was removed and the doors locked, CW3 testified that her child was asleep on the seat in the house and one of the iron sheets fell on the child and caused injuries.
49. Furthermore, every single witness, the Claimant included, testified that the Claimant was never denied access to the communal facilities within the premises such as the sinks, water taps, bathroom and toilet facilities. This Tribunal, thus, finds that the Claimant has failed to demonstrate any mistreatment, stigmatisation and/or harassment by the 1st Respondent towards her as a result of her status. The dispute between the Claimant and 1st Respondent seems to be a landlord/tenant dispute that has nothing to do with the Claimant’s status. This Tribunal is the wrong forum to address the claim against the 1st Respondent.
50. With respect to the 2nd Respondent, in her Statement of Claim, the Claimant avers that the 2nd Respondent discriminated, stigmatized and caused all form of verbal torture to the Claimant hence the Claimant seeks an apology and general damages. Persons living with HIV are exposed to stigma associated with HIV related conditions and often suffer low self-esteem. Disclosure undermines the person’s dignity and it is the duty of this Tribunal to positively address and seek to eradicate conditions that aggravate the spread of HIV infection.
(iii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
51. The Claimant submits that with respect to discrimination and the unlawful disclosure of her status, she is entitled to an award of Kshs 2,500,000/. Reliance is placed on the cases of V.M.K –vs- CUEA (2013) eKLR and M. K. vs Seventh Day Adventist Health Services & anor (2016) eKLR.
52. For emotional and psychological suffering and the impairment of dignity, the Claimant submits that having lived in the premises for over 6 years, and having her status disclosed to over 20 people, the Claimant suffered loss of self-esteem due to the disclosure and discriminatory acts. She submits that the damages under this head ought to be Kshs 300,000/- in line with the case of R.N vs R.O.O., HAT No. 10 of 2018.
53. In her Statement of Claim, the reliefs sought by the Claimant are:
(a) A sum of Kshs 15,000/- being the deposit and expenses incurred;
(b) General damages;
(c) A public apology by the Respondents to the Claimant;
(d) Costs of this suit;
54. On the issue of the special damages of Kshs 15,000/- being deposit and expenses incurred, we find that the Claimant has not proved the same. No evidence was adduced that the Claimant had paid a deposit of Kshs 15,000/- or that she was entitled to the same. Further, this Tribunal is the wrong forum for such a claim.
56. With respect to general damages, this Tribunal finds that there was disclosure of the Claimant’s status to third parties without her consent, for which the Claimant is entitled to damages against the 2nd Respondent. In assessing the damages to be awarded to the Claimant, the Tribunal is guided by the words of Patterson J.A in Fuller –vs A.G of Jamaica (Civil Appeal No. 91/1995) (unreported):
“It is incumbent on the courts to develop appropriate principles and guidelines as to the quantum of awards of compensation where applicable… Where an award of monetary compensation is appropriate the crucial question must be what is a reasonable amount in the circumstances of the particular case… But that does not means that the infringement should be blown out of all proportion to reality nor does it mean that it should be trivialised. In like manner, the award should not be so large as to be a windfall nor should it be so small as to be nugatory.”
57. In light of this and in line with the precedents set by this Tribunal, we find that general damages of Kshs 250,000/- are sufficient under this head.
58. Regarding a public apology, as was stated by this Tribunal in the case of RN –vs ROO, HAT No. 10 of 2018 eKLR, it is our considered view that a public apology would be inappropriate under the circumstances. Such an act would require the person apologizing to disclose the cause of the dispute requiring the apology, which would lead to further disclosure of the Claimant’s status. This Tribunal wishes to preserve the dignity of the Claimant and not expose her to further embarrassment and humiliation.
E: Determination
59. The Tribunal finds that the unwarranted disclosure of the Claimant’s HIV status by the 2nd Respondent violated the provisions of Section 22 of HAPCA. In conclusion, the claim is determined as follows:
(a) A declaration is hereby issued that the disclosure of the Claimant’s HIV status by the 2nd Respondent was wrongful and unlawful and amounts to violation of the provisions of Section 22 of the HIV & AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2006;
(b) Judgement is hereby entered in favour of the Claimant against the 2nd respondent for the sum of Kshs 250,000/- by way of general damages;
(c) That the above sum shall attract interest at court rates from date of this judgment until payment in full;
(d) The claim against the 1st Respondent is hereby dismissed with costs.
(e) The Claimant and 2nd Respondent shall each bear their own costs.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and signed in Nairobi this 26th day of May, 2020
Delivered at Nairobi this 26th day of May, 2020.
Helene Namisi (Chairperson) ………………..…………….
Melissa Ng’ania ………………………….......
Justus T. Somoire ………………………………
Dr. Maryanne Ndonga ………………………............
Abdullahi Diriye ………………………………..
Tusmo Jama ………………………………..
Dorothy Kimeng’ech ………………………………..