The High Court has declined to certify as urgent an insolvency petition filed against The Nairobi Hospital, allowing the matter to proceed through the normal judicial process.
Justice Peter Mulwa delivered the decision after considering a Certificate of Urgency application filed by Opticom Kenya Limited on August 7, 2025.
Opticom had sought immediate judicial intervention, arguing that the circumstances surrounding a contract dispute with the hospital required a swift resolution.
However, the court found that the case did not meet the threshold for urgency.
"Having considered the Notice of Motion dated 07/08/2025 brought under certificate of urgency, and having read the supporting affidavit, I hereby declare that the application is not certified urgent. The same to be served and response filed within 14 days of service, with corresponding leave for the applicant to file a further affidavit, if need be," the judge ruled.
The dispute involves the supply and installation of pedestrian and baggage security scanners at the hospital, valued at Sh53 million.
According to court filings, the disagreement relates to the specifications of the supplied equipment under the contract.
The matter later escalated into an insolvency petition, prompting the application for urgency.
In response to the petition and a related gazette notice, the hospital, through its CEO Felix Osano, issued a statement clarifying that the notice does not indicate insolvency and affirming its continued solvency and commitment to uninterrupted medical services.
He stated that the dispute is contractual in nature and will be resolved through the judicial process in line with the legal and constitutional rights of all parties involved.
"The Hospital maintains that the dispute on the equipment variance is one to be determined as per the contract and clarifies that the gazette notice does not render The Nairobi Hospital insolvent," read part of the statement.
The hospital also noted that it had filed objections to the petition.
Opticom’s request for urgency was based on concerns that administrative or governance decisions at the hospital could affect its position if the matter proceeded at the regular pace.
The petitioner had sought interim orders to maintain the status quo pending determination of the case.
Despite these arguments, the court ruled that the urgency criteria were not met.
