Relief for Nairobi Hospital board as Court of Appeal lifts ban on meetings

The Court of Appeal has allowed Nairobi Hospital board members to resume meetings after overturning an order that had barred them from convening since July.

The three-judge bench led by Justices Patrick Kiage, Jamila Mohammed, and Weldon Korir on lifted the freeze pending the hearing of an appeal lodged by the hospital and three senior officials, among them Chief Executive Officer Felix Osano.

The appellate judges also suspended contempt proceedings facing Osano, board chairperson Dr Barcley Onyambu, and company secretary Gilbert Nyamweya.

The case had been pending before High Court judge Nixon Sifuna.

“We now direct that a temporary order be and is hereby issued in terms of prayer 3 of the motion staying the orders issued by the High Court and any further proceedings therein pending delivery of the ruling,” ruled the judges.

The hospital had argued that the order halting all board meetings had disrupted operations and crippled governance.

Vice Chairman Samson Mbuthia Kinyanjui told the court that strategic decisions could not be executed without the board, noting that the CEO has a spending cap of Ksh.5 million without board approval.

“The board of management plays a critical role in making urgent administrative and operational decisions necessary for the continued functioning of the hospital,” Kinyanjui said.

Justice Sifuna had on July 3 barred the board from meeting and later found Dr Onyambu, Mr Osano, and Nyamweya guilty of contempt after they attended a retreat in Naivasha on July 3 and 4.

Dr Onyambu told the appellate court that members had already gathered in Naivasha when the order was served, and accused Justice Sifuna of summoning them for punishment on July 17 without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

In their application, the three officials said they risked “grave prejudice and paralysis of operations” if contempt proceedings were allowed to continue.

They further accused the High Court judge of imposing lawyers on them after rejecting their request to withdraw the case and of proceeding with the matter despite contested representation of the plaintiffs.