Case challenging my appointment lacks basis - Poisons Board chair

Mboya moved to court seeking to quash the appointment of Githinji.

In Summary
  • Githinji has, however, maintained that he could not be subjected to disciplinary by the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board.
  • He says that the conviction by the KMPD Board on which the suit is solely premised no longer exists rendering the entire petition a stillbirth.
Court gavel
Court gavel
Image: FILE

The chairperson of the Pharmacy and Poisons Board Charles Githinji has defended his position in a case where he was fined Sh27,000 by the Kenya Medical and Practitioners Board following the death of a minor. 

The chairman was allegedly accused of failing to take the minor's medical history leading to improper diagnosis and inappropriate prescription.

In response to a suit filed by lawyer Apollo Mboya who sued him for gross misconduct, Githinji clarified that he is not a doctor or dentist but a registered pharmacist. 

Mboya moved to court seeking to quash the appointment of Githinji, made on January 20, 2023, as the chairperson of the board.

Githinji has, however, maintained that he could not be subjected to disciplinary by the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board.

The board had also fined him for masquerading as a medical practitioner, engaging in diagnostic and curative services, but he said the findings were quashed by the High Court.

Githinji challenged the board’s decision after arguing that he was not a doctor or a dentist but a registered pharmacist and was, therefore, not subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the board.

According to Githinji, the findings and holdings by the court are clear beyond doubt that the Board went beyond its jurisdiction when it purported to sit and determine a complaint against him.

He says that the conviction by the KMPD Board on which the suit is solely premised no longer exists rendering the entire petition a stillbirth.

“That the said decision was and remains a nullity in law and any cause of action (like the present) one sought to be premised on such a nullity, is a nullity in itself,” Githinji said.

Githinji further states that the court was never called to investigate or determine his professional suitability and there is a clear and wide distinction between professional negligence and professional misconduct.

WATCH: The latest videos from the Star