REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIV AND AIDS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI
HAT CASE NO. 06 OF 2021
BAO........................................................................................................................................CLAIMANT
-VERSUS-
CHINA HENAN INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION GROUP CO. LTD............RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
A. Introduction
1. The Claimant filed a Statement of Claim dated 20TH June 2021 seeking judgment against the Respondent for;
a. Exemplary damages for discrimination of the Claimant on the basis of her HIV status and gross violation of her dignity as a human;
b. Damages for the tort of forced HIV testing;
c. Damages for failure to perform pre-test and post-testing counselling on the Claimant before conducting the HIV testing on her;
d. Damages for the breach of privacy and confidentiality by disclosing the HIV status of the Claimant;
e. Costs of this suit;
f. Interest on (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) until payment in full; and
g. Any other relief the Tribunal deems fit
2. The Claimant pleaded that on 5th March 2021, at [Particulars Witthheld] site, the Claimant together with other employees were forced by the agents of the Respondent to undergo HIV testing. The Claimant was not willing to undergo the test, but she was made to understand that it was either she took the test or lost her job, so the Claimant chose to keep her job.
3. Further, the Claimant averred that on the same day, one of the senior employees of the Respondent, working on orders from the Respondent, forced the Claimant to retake the HIV test. The second testing was characterized by physical assault of the Claimant, forcing her into submission for HIV testing. The senior employee then went ahead to disclose the HIV status of the Claimant to all that were present at the Quarry site.
4. The Claimant averred that she was summarily dismissed by word of mouth, she faces discrimination at home and has lost friends as a result of the disclosure of her status. Further, the Claimant has not been able to secure another job due to the reckless acts of the Respondent’s senior employee of disclosing the Claimant status to all and sundry.
5. In support of her claim, the Claimant filed a Witness Statement and Bundle of Documents both dated 26th July 2021.
6. In response to the Statement of Claim, the Respondent filed its Statement of Response dated 24th August 2021 in which the Respondent denied the averments by the Claimant in toto. By rejoinder, the Respondent averred that it is a contractor engaged for the construction of the Isebania- Kisii road by the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing, Urban Development and Public Works (hereinafter ‘the Ministry’). General Requirement 2503 (d) of the Contract with the Ministry obligates the Contractor (the Respondent herein) to employ and designate a qualified HIV/AIDS expert to be approved by the Engineer who will work closely with the Contractor (Respondent), Ministry and other implementing agencies.
7. The Respondent averred Valley Healthcare Ltd to HIV/AIDS training among prevention measures. that in compliance with the provisions of the contract, subcontracted undertake HIV awareness campaigns, AIDS prevention campaigns, its workers. HIV testing was part of the HIV/AIDS awareness and
8. In support, the Respondent filed witness statements and a Bundle of Documents dated 24th August 2021.
.B. The Claimant’s Case
9. The Claimant began her testimony by stating that she was employed at by the Respondent as a cook since 23rd December 2019. Sometime in March 2021, she had gone out for lunch one day. On reporting back to work at about 3pm, she found a crowd of people at the premises telling her that they were waiting for her in order to conduct an HIV test on her. The people indicated that they had been instructed by the Respondent.
10. It was the Claimant’s testimony that her boss was present and instructed her to go for the test. The Claimant did not want to lose her job so she agreed to be tested. The results came out and the doctor dumped the kit in the garbage. The Claimant testified that as she was walking out of the shed, her boss grabbed her and ordered her to be re-tested. The Claimant went back to be re-tested. It was her testimony that this time around, her boss left with the testing kit and waited for the results. Once the results came out, the boss began calling people around, and informing the people that the Claimant was sick and should go home. The Claimant’s colleagues began laughing at her and isolating her.
11. The Claimant testified that after this incident with the testing, her boss instructed her to go collect her terminal benefits. The Claimant was very embarrassed, angry and upset. She proceeded to collect her job card and left the premises. The Claimant then reported the matter at the Police Station and obtained an OB number. She was asked to go back to the Police Station the following, but did not make it since she was feeling unwell. The Claimant went back to the Police Station 3 days later.
12. It was the Claimant’s testimony that the DCIO accompanied her to the Respondent’s head office for a meeting, after which the DCIO proceeded to the [Particulars Withheld] site and picked up the boss for questioning. Upon inquiry by the DCIO, the Respondent’s representative made a proposal to pay the Claimant some money, including house allowance and 6 months’ salary, which offer the Claimant declined.
13. In support of her claim, the Claimant adduced her Job Card dated 8th March 2021 (Exhibit 1), the dismissal letter dated 16th March 2021 (Exhibit 2), Audio Recording (Exhibit 3), Referral Form from IPOA dated 18th May 2021 (Exhibit 4) and OB Number xxxx made at 1805 hours (Exhibit 5).
14. On cross examination, the Claimant averred that she did not indicate her name on any training attendance form, nor did she sign up anywhere. She also stated that she did not see anyone else being tested on that day, not even her colleague, D.N., the cleaner. The Claimant testified that there had been no testing of employees since she began working with the Respondent. At the point of employment, the Claimant was not required to take an HIV test, neither was she informed that the test would be a pre-condition to keeping her job.
15. The Claimant further testified that she was informed by the doctor that the test was a requirement, failing which she would be terminated. She insisted that for the second test, she was grabbed and pushed by the senior representative, Mr. Chang. However, the Claimant could not confirm if Mr. Chang was working on orders from the Respondent.
16. On the issue of the job card, the Claimant stated that she was summarily dismissed although her job card indicates that she worked on 6th, 7th and 8Th March 2021. She denied returning to the premises on 22nd March 2021. However, when she went back to the office on or about 14th March 2021, she was informed that she had been terminated because she had been absent without leave for one week.
17. The Claimant admitted knowing Mr. FO, the clinical officer in the HIV department, although it was her testimony that she did not really know what he does there. She also admitted knowing A, who works in the safety department and Abigail, who is an HR officer. The Claimant confirmed that she had been to the HR office on two other occasions.
C: Respondent’s Case
18. The Respondent proceeded with its oral evidence and called three witnesses.
19. RW1, A.W, is the HR manager at the Respondent company. She adopted her Witness Statement dated 24th August 2021 as part of her evidence and produced Bundle of Documents dated 24th August 2021.
20. It was RW1’s testimony that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Claimant at any given point because of her status. RW1 noted that the Claimant had been in employment for over a year, and it would not make sense to begin discriminating against her at this point. RW1 confirmed that the status of the employees is not a pre-condition for their employment.
21. With respect to the testing, RW1 testified that the same was done on 8th March 2021 in line with the project requirements. It was conducted at all the Respondent’s sites. RW1 confirmed that the Respondent had contracted Valley Health Services to conduct HIV awareness within the project. It was a continuous program that began in 2017 and there had been no complaints in the past.
22. On cross examination, RW1 confirmed that there is an attendance form that is signed by the employees. This form has been adopted since 2017. Signing of the form indicates that one has given consent for HIV testing. The form produced before the Tribunal is titled ‘Training and HIV services’ and is meant for HIV testing services.
23. RW1 testified that she did not interact with the Claimant between 8th and 11th March 2021. It was on 11th March 2021 that the Claimant walked into RW1’s office and threw her job card on the table and informed RW1 that the matter had been reported to the media. RW1 confirmed that the Claimant had not been dismissed orally, but a letter was done to that effect. When the Claimant left RW1’s office on 11th March 2021, RW1 tried contacting the Claimant on phone, to no avail. The calls were placed between 11th and 16th March 2021. The Claimant did not answer any of her calls.
24. On cross examination, RW1 admitted that she was not present at the particular site during the testing. She confirmed that she was aware that Mr. Chang had been arrested, although the same did not happen on 8th march 2021.
25. RW1 testified that HIV testing is a voluntary and has to be done with the consent of the employee. She noted that some employees signed the form while others did not. The Respondent cannot and has never forced any employee to be tested.
26. RW2, Mr. FOO, an employee of [Particulars Withheld] Healthcare Ltd, adopted his witness statement dated 24th August 2021. In his recollection of the events of 8th March 2021, RW2 denied that the Claimant came to the site and found people waiting for her. He noted that it is not the practice of [Particulars Withheld] Healthcare Ltd to forcefully test individuals.
27. RW2 testified that the Training Attendance Form is used as a reporting tool, reporting to the Respondent. It is used to report that an activity has been conducted. The title specifies the title of the training. In this instance, the activity in question was HIV testing. For those who sign the form, it denotes their consent to the activity being conducted. No one is forced to sign. RW2 confirmed that the Claimant’s name appeared on the sheet at number 9. On cross examination, RW2 noted that the form was titled ‘HIV testing services’, but denied that the form could be interpreted to mean that the attendees were being trained on how to conduct the HIV testing. He testified that it was clearly communicated to the persons signing that signing the form meant that they were consenting to the test. He noted that this particular form is used only for HIV testing.
28. It was RW2’s testimony that to the best of his knowledge, the Claimant was not forced to undertake the HIV test. He noted that he would have known if anyone had been forced to take the test. There were other people who consented to the test after the Claimant did, including the Chinese staff members.
29. RW2 testified that Valley Healthcare Ltd was contracted in 2018 and has been conducting the tests every quarter. There has never been any complaint.
30. On cross examination, RW2 clarified that on 8th March 2021, he was coordinating the HIV services at the different Respondent’s sites. He was at the [Particulars Withheld] site for about 30 minutes and by the time he left, about 19 people had been trained. RW2 conducted the training at the site then left when the testing was ongoing. He could not confirm how many people had been tested by the time he was leaving the [Particulars Withheld site.
31. Further, RW2 confirmed that he was at the Police Station when Mr. Chang was arrested. He did not propose that the Claimant should be paid and did not know who made that proposal.
32. RW3, Ms. AM, is employed by the Respondent as a sociologist. She began working with the Respondent in 2019. She adopted her witness statement dated 24th August 2021 as her evidence. She testified that her job entails looking into the welfare of the employees and taking care of their wellbeing. RW3 testified that the Claimant did not come to her with any complaint with respect to her work. She further testified that it is not a requirement for the employees to reveal their status in order to retain their jobs. She confirmed that she had never revealed her own status to the Respondent.
33. It was RW3’s testimony that if at all the Claimant had been forced to take the HIV test, she would have known about it. Sometimes, the other employees make reports on behalf of others. She confirmed that she did not receive any such complaint. On cross examination, RW3 testified that the Claimant had not reported any abuse to her. She noted that if anything had happened at the [Particulars Withheld site, the Kenyan foreman or any other employee would have told her about it. RW3 clarified that physical assault is not a minor incident and that if the same had happened, the employees would have downed their tools. She recalled an incident in the past where a Chinese staff member shoved an employee and the staff came to her to lodge the complaint.
34. RW3 further testified that she was not privy to the arrest of Mr. Chang and did not know why he had been arrested.
35. RW3 confirmed that the HIV testing exercise has been taking place since she joined the Respondent. Employees are introduced to the person undertaking the exercise, they are made aware of the activity, then those willing to be tested sign the attendance sheet before being tested. RW3 confirmed that the HIV Testing Services (HTS) counsellor does the counselling.
D: Issues for Determination
36. After analyzing the pleadings and documents filed by both parties together with the oral evidence presented before this Tribunal and submissions filed, we are the opinion that the following are the issues for determination:
(i) Whether the Claimant was compelled to undergo HIV testing without her informed consent;
(ii) Whether the HIV test was preceded by pre-test counselling and followed by post-test counselling as required by law;
(iii) Whether the Respondent unlawfully disclosed the Claimant’s status to third parties without the Claimant’s consent;
(iv) Whether the Claimant was discriminated upon based on her status; and
(v) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
E: Legal Analysis
37. We will analyze each issue singularly.
(i) Whether the Claimant was compelled to undergo HIV testing without her informed consent
38. The Claimant submitted that the Respondent used its position of power to intimidate the Claimant into agreeing to be tested for HIV, against the Claimant’s will. The Claimant contended that it is against the law that one should undergo HIV testing so as to continue enjoying employment. The Claimant further submitted that the Form titled ‘Training Attendance Form’ ought to have been properly labelled and printed to indicate expressly what would happen upon signing the form. The Claimant submitted that the misleading title and the events after the signing depict the cunning nature of the Respondent to lie and force its employees to be tested for HIV without their consent.
39. With respect to this issue, the Respondent’s submissions focus more on the discrepancy in the dates, that is, that the test was conducted on 8th March 2021 and not 5th March 2021 as claimed by the Claimant.
40. First, we are minded that this is a Tribunal where the focus is more on the substance rather than technicalities, as enshrined in Article 159 (2) (d) of The Constitution. It is not in dispute that the Claimant was tested for HIV. The real question here is whether or not the Claimant gave informed consent prior to the testing as is required under section 14 of HAPCA.
41. In addressing this issue, the question arises as to who actually conducted the test on the Claimant.
It is clear from the Claimant’s testimony and the Respondent’s witnesses that the test was actually conducted by an employee of Valley Healthcare Limited named BN, and not the Respondent itself. From this evidence two questions arise; what is the relationship between Valley Healthcare Limited and the Respondent, and can the Respondent be held liable for the actions of [Particulars Withheld] Healthcare Limited.
42. The Respondent produced a bundle of documents herein, which contained a contract between the Respondent and [Particulars Withheld] Healthcare Limited for consultancy services for HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns within the Respondent’s project, thus pointing to a principal-agent relationship between the two.
43. Black’s Law Dictionary defines vicarious liability as
“Liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties.”
44. In Messina Associated Carriers –vs- Kleinhaus [2001] 3 All SA 285 (SCA), it was noted that:
“The law will permit the recovery of damages from one person for delict committed by another where the relationship between them and the interest of the one in the conduct of the other is such as to render the situation analogous to that of an employee acting in the course and scope of his or her employment or, … where ‘in the eye of the law’ the one was in the position of the other’s servant.”
45. From the foregoing, we find that the Respondent is vicariously liable for the actions or omissions of its agent, [Particulars Withheld] Healthcare Limited which occur in the discharge of its contractual obligations
46. Back to the issue of informed consent, which was first addressed by this Tribunal in the case of CNM –vs- The Karen Hospital Ltd, HAT No. 08 of 2015 (unreported). In the case, the Tribunal opined that ‘informed consent’ for HIV testing means that the person being tested agrees to undergo the test on the basis of understanding the testing procedures, the reasons for the testing, and is able to assess the personal implications of having or not having the test performed. The Tribunal further opined that the requirement for informed consent is intended to uphold the dignity of the patient and it proceeds on the theory that the patient does not lose dignity because he has fallen sick or because he does not know what his treatment will entail, which treatment option is better than the other, or others, and what risks are associated with any or all the available treatment options.
47. In arriving at whether or not a person gives informed consent, the Tribunal, in the cited case, enumerated the various issues that must be openly discussed with the person prior to the testing. These include:
(a) What is an HIV test?
(b) What is the purpose of HIV Testing?
(c) What are the limitations of HIV testing?
(d) What are the risks involved (medical and non-medical risks)?
(e) What are the results expected?
(f) What does HIV diagnosis mean and what supports are available?
(g) What does negative HIV test mean?
(h) What confidentiality and privacy issues will arise and how will they be dealt with?
(i) What are the implications of not being tested?
48. Consent is also defined under section 2 of HAPCA as follows:
“Consent” means consent given without force, fraud or threat and with full knowledge and understanding of the medical and social consequences of the matter which the consent relates
49. In JK –vs- AAR Healthcare Kenya Ltd [2020] eKLR, the Tribunal was faced with a similar situation in which the claimant signed an attendance sheet and the respondent then argued that the same could be construed as the claimant’s consent to HIV testing. In the said case, the Tribunal held thus:
“In our view, signing an attendance sheet does not in any way signify consent. It is merely a register of the persons who attended an event/activity. The implications of signing the attendance sheet were not explained to the Claimant so as to expect that the Claimant was aware that by signing this sheet, she was consenting to the HIV test. A cursory look at the sheet reveals a rather ordinary attendance sheet with columns for Name, Age, Sex, Height, BMI, Remarks, Phone Number and Email address. The top of the sheet is marked “N WELLNESS. Nakuru Activation/Health Talk”. Nothing on this sheet indicates that the participant is consenting to an HIV test. The Respondent’s argument that the Claimant consented to the test, therefore, fails to meet the legal standard.”
50. In the matter herein, the Claimant’s signature appears at No. 9 on a form titled “Training Attendance Form’. The title of the training is indicated as HIV Testing Services. RW2 testified that this form is also used for other activities such as HIV awareness creation. Just as was in the AAR Healthcare Kenya Ltd case (supra), we find that form does not in any way indicate that the person is consenting to an HIV test, thus the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant consented to the test fails to meet the legal standard.
51. Another issue that falls to determination is whether the Claimant was compelled to undergo HIV testing, in violation of the provisions of section 13 of HAPCA. Section 13 (1) provides that no person shall compel another to undergo an HIV test. The Claimant testified that she agreed to take the test because she was apprehensive that she would lose her job if she failed to do so. Bearing in mind the relationship between the Claimant and Respondent, the apprehension and fear of reprisal is fathomable. However, there is uncontroverted evidence by the Respondent that the HIV awareness campaigns and testing had been going on for several years, and that this was not the first time that the employees were being tested. What is not clear though is whether or not this was the first time that the Claimant was being subjected to an HIV test. The Claimant did not provide any evidence on the same. In the absence of such evidence, this Tribunal is left with the Respondent’s uncontroverted evidence which waters down the Claimant’s aversion that she was compelled or coerced into being tested.
(ii) Whether the HIV test was preceded by pre-test counselling and followed by post-test counselling as required by law
52. Section 17 of HAPCA provides as follows:
Every testing centre shall provide pre-test and post-test counselling to a person undergoing an HIV test and any other person likely to be affected by the results of such test.
53. This section is couched in mandatory terms, which means that what is prescribed is obligatory on any person or institution that is conducting HIV testing. The Respondent’s witness, RW2, testified that he personally conducted the training at the site, but left as the employees awaited testing. Indeed, the form presented by the Respondent is an indication that some form of training or awareness took place prior to the testing. The tests were conducted by a different individual, BN., who was not called as a witness herein.
54. The Claimant did not testify as to whether or not pre-test counselling was conducted. However, the Claimant testified that upon receiving her results for the second test, she became enraged since the supervisor took a photo of the results and began disclosing the results to the other workers. With this in mind, it is safe to assume that there was no post-test counselling offered to the Claimant. The question that arises is whether the Respondent can be held liable for failing to provide post-test counselling in light of the Claimant’s rage.
(iii) Whether the Respondents unlawfully disclosed the Claimant’s status to third parties without the Claimant’s consent
55. In the case of S.M -vs- E.N.A; HAT NO. 018 of 2018 (unreported), this Tribunal opined thus:
“It is trite law that the onus of proof is on he who alleges. To obtain relief for violations under HAPCA, particularly that of unlawful disclosure of status, the Claimant must demonstrate the manner in which the Respondent violated these provisions. It is noteworthy that in this instance, the Claimant’s testimony was uncorroborated. Although the Claimant made reference to people whom the disclosure was made, including neighbors and her landlady, none of these individuals was called as a witness to corroborate the Claimant’s testimony that it was the Respondent who disclosed the Claimant’s status to them.”
56. It is this Tribunal’s general position that for one to succeed in a claim for unlawful disclosure of status, one must tender corroborative evidence either in the form of a person who overheard the oral statement being made or the publication of the said information on a platform or forum that could easily be accessed by a third party.
57. Having said this, analysis of whether or not there was unlawful disclosure of one’s status is done on a case by case basis. In this case, the Claimant has tendered a 2 hour audio recording, in which there are several voices speaking in English, Kiswahili and Dholuo, with no benefit of a transcript of the same. At the hearing, the Claimant’s counsel did not lead the Claimant to testify with respect to the aspects of the recording that the Tribunal should consider, but instead merely had the Claimant produce the entire recording. It now falls to the Tribunal to listen to the recording in its entirety and discern what herein amounts to credible evidence of any wrongdoing.
58. The audio recording begins with some gentlemen’s voices and one female voice that is later identified as the Claimant. One of the gentlemen’s voices has an Asian Chinese accent, presumably a representative of the Respondent. The Claimant presents her complaints against the Respondent, and a gentleman, presumably a police officer, is overheard saying that it was wrong for the Claimant’s photos to be circulated and that this has led to the Claimant’s stigmatization. At some point during the conversation, an offer is made to the Claimant to settle this matter by paying her some money, house allowance and allowing her to choose where she would like to work. The Claimant rejects the offer. Later in the recording, in Dholuo, a gentleman is overheard pleading with the Claimant to accept the offer by the Respondent and not pursue the matter any further as this will jeopardize his future and that of his colleagues.
59. At no point in the recording is there any denial by any of the parties that any wrongdoing occurred. In fact, the offer made and general nature of the discussion is akin to an admission of liability on the part of the Respondent’s representatives. In the premise, we find that, on a balance of probabilities, the unlawful disclosure of the Claimant’s status by the supervisor to third parties did occur.
(iv) Whether the Claimant was discriminated upon based on her status
60. It was the Claimant’s testimony that she was dismissed summarily as a result of her status. She produced her job card as proof of the summary dismissal. The Respondent, on the other hand, brought witnesses who testified that the Claimant absconded from work, and as a result was dismissed for absenteeism. Indeed, the “Quit Claim” Form produced by the Respondent confirms that the Claimant was paid all her dues and waived her right to raise any claims in future in respect of the same. This evidence was not controverted by the Claimant.
61. The foregoing notwithstanding, the effects of the unlawful disclosure by the Respondent cannot be downplayed, whether the same was by sharing photos of the Claimant’s test results or verbally disclosing her status to the employees within the Respondent premises. We take cognizance of the effects of such unlawful and unwarranted disclosure of the Claimant’s status on the Claimant’s wellbeing, which effects could possibly have contributed to the Claimant disappearing from work, and subsequently led to her dismissal for absenteeism. The disclosure of the Claimant’s status without her written consent demonstrates the seriousness of the violations and the need to compensate the Claimant for the mental anguish and eventual loss of employment due to her HIV status.
(v) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
62. In Charles Oriwo Odeyo –vs- Apollo Justus Andabwa & Another [2017] eKLR, the Court held:
The assessment of damages in personal injury case by court is guided by the following principles: -
1) An award of damages is not meant to enrich the victim but to compensate such victim for the injuries sustained.
2) The award should be commensurable with the injuries sustained.
3) Previous awards in similar injuries sustained are mere guide but each case be treated on its own facts.
4) Previous awards to be taken into account to maintain stability of awards but factors such as inflation should be taken into account.
5) The awards should not be inordinately low or high (See Boniface Waiti & another Vs Michael Kariuki Kamau (2007) eKLR.”
63. We find that the Respondent’s design for the Claimant to undergo an HIV test and subsequently disclose her status was unfair infringement of the Claimant’s rights under HAPCA because it amounted to having the Claimant provide information relating to her health status in circumstances whereby such information was unnecessarily required or to be revealed. The Tribunal has considered the pain, suffering and anxiety that the Claimant underwent in the face of the HIV testing, the flagrant breach of the right to confidentiality and freedom from stigma and discrimination, and subsequently finds that the Respondent is liable to compensate the Claimant. In awarding the damages herein, we are guided by the High Court decision in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E377 of 2020, which was an appeal from the Tribunal’s decision in HAT Case No. 030 of 2019.
F: Determination
64. Judgement is, therefore, entered in the sum of Kshs 1,600,000/- in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent as follows;
a. Kshs 250,000/- being damages for conducting an HIV test on the Claimant without her informed consent;
b. Kshs 500,000/- being damages for the unlawful disclosure of the Claimant’s status to third parties without the Claimant’s consent;
c. Kshs 850,000/- being damages for emotional and psychological distress as a result of the stigma brought on by the disclosure of the Claimant’s status;
d. Interest on (a), (b), (c), at court rates from the date of this judgment until payment in full;
e. Costs are awarded to the Claimant.
Orders accordingly.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
Delivered virtually in the presence of:
Mr. Okemwa for the Claimant
Mr. Nyamurongi for the Respondent
Claimant present.
Helene Namisi (Chairperson)
...................................................
Melissa Ng’ania
...................................................
Justus T. Somoire
...................................................
Dr. Maryanne Ndonga
...................................................
Tusmo Jama
.....................................................
Dorothy Kimengech