A decision made by the High Court in Nairobi in June 2025 has set a significant precedent in medical negligence law in Kenya. The court found both a hospital and a consultant gynaecologist jointly and severally liable for severe injuries suffered by a patient following a hysterectomy and related procedures and awarded damages of R21 557 191. The judgment provides important guidance on the duties of medical professionals and healthcare institutions, particularly regarding informed consent and the standard of care.
The claimant, a young woman, underwent a hysterectomy at a leading private hospital in Kenya. She later discovered that, in addition to the removal of her uterus and ovaries, her cervix had also been removed without her knowledge or consent. Following further surgery for pelvic endometriosis, she suffered serious complications, including bladder damage and a vesicovaginal fistula, resulting in persistent urinary incontinence, pain, and loss of sexual function, with significant impact on her quality of life and ability to work.
The court found that the consultant gynaecologist failed to obtain proper informed consent for the removal of the cervix. The consent form was not witnessed by a nurse, and the patient was not adequately informed of the nature and implications of the procedure. The use of medical abbreviations and lack of clear explanation were held to be insufficient, especially given the claimant’s previous medical history and the life-altering consequences of the surgery.
The hospital was found liable on the basis of corporate negligence. The court held that healthcare institutions have a non-delegable duty to ensure that only competent practitioners are allowed to operate within their facilities and that proper procedures are followed. The hospital’s failure to provide up-to-date diagnostic equipment and to monitor the credentials of its medical staff contributed to the claimant’s injuries. The court was critical of the hospital’s lack of oversight, particularly as the doctor in question had previously faced professional sanctions in another jurisdiction.
The court awarded the claimant and her husband a total of Kshs. 157,207,524.20 (approximately R21,557,191.80), including special damages for medical expenses and substantial general damages for loss of the cervix, loss of consortium, loss of amenities, pain and suffering, and loss of earning capacity. The judgment emphasises that compensation in medical negligence cases should aim to restore the claimant, insofar as money can do so, to the position they would have been in but for the negligence.
This decision underscores the importance of clear communication, proper documentation, and multidisciplinary collaboration in medical practice. Hospitals must maintain rigorous standards in staff selection and patient care protocols.
The case is likely to influence future claims and risk management practices in the healthcare sector, highlighting the need for robust consent procedures, comprehensive patient education, and ongoing monitoring of medical staff credentials. It serves as a reminder that the rights and dignity of patients must be at the forefront of all medical decision-making.