Parents ordered to pay Sh5.7m hospital bill after court overturns Sh12.5m award

Pandya Hospital in Mombasa, which sued parents over Sh12.5 million in medical bills for their daughter and grandchild. [Courtesy]

On April 18 2015, Sarah Dzombo’s daughter (END) delivered her baby (EN) at Pandya Hospital in Mombasa County and the baby was admitted to the hospital the next day.

Five months later, on August 31 2015, END was discharged with a medical bill of Sh8,212,807.

EN was discharged after seven months, on October 2 2015 and was slapped with a Sh6,778,757 hospital bill.

Later, END’s bill was revised to Sh5,738,956.

END’s father, Kukaa Gari, executed a Guarantee of Payment dated September 14 2017, in respect of Sh6,778,757, which he committed to pay over a period of 10 years.

Meanwhile, Dzombo signed the hospital admission documents containing terms under which she undertook responsibility for payment of the hospital expenses for her daughter.

However, in November 2019, the hospital filed a suit before Mombasa Chief Magistrate Josephat Kalo demanding Sh12,517,713 as debt due for both END and her child.

The hospital also sought interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit, costs and any other appropriate relief.

In a judgment dated July 30 2025, the Magistrate ordered that END’s parents pay the said Sh12,517,713 plus interest and costs of the suit.

Aggrieved END’s parents appealed before Justice Nabil Orina, where they denied liability and challenged the competence of the suit and the basis upon which the alleged hospital debt was claimed.

Gari told Justice Orina that the Sh6,778,757 covered by the Guarantee of Payment was payable within 10 years and the suit by Pandya Hospital was prematurely instituted.

He said that he had made two payments of Sh20,000 each pursuant to the guarantee.

On her part, Dzombo challenged the circumstances in which she signed the hospital admission documents.

Dzombo said that she was required to sign the documents as a condition for her daughter and granddaughter to receive medical treatment and that the signatures were obtained in circumstances amounting to necessity, implied coercion and undue influence.

She further disputed the hospital’s claim to joint and several liability, contending that the alleged debts related to two distinct patients and that the respective obligations of her and her husband were separate.

On October 8 2026, Justice Orina overturned Kalo’s orders and directed that END’s parents pay Sh5,698,956, being the outstanding amount of END’s medical bill.

Justice Orina dismissed the Sh6,778,757 medical bill for END’s child under the Guarantee of Payment dated 14 September 2017.

The judge said that the hospital did not establish an earlier contractual payment date or default trigger under that guarantee which had crystallised by the time the suit was instituted in November 2019.

He said the claim against the Gari for Sh6,778,757 under the September 14 2017 Guarantee of Payment was premature.

“Judgment is entered in favour of the Respondent (Pandya Hospital) against the 1st and 2nd Appellants (Gari and Dzombo) jointly and severally in the sum of Sh5,698,956 in respect of the outstanding hospital account of END. The claim against the Appellants for Sh6,778,757 under the Guarantee of Payment dated 14 September 2017 is dismissed,” said Justice Orina.

The judge said that the trial court erred in entering a blanket judgment jointly and severally against both END’s parents for Sh12,517,713.

He said the error lay not in finding that hospital charges were due, but in failing to distinguish the two accounts, the separate contractual instruments, the temporal limitation contained in the September 14 2017 Guarantee of Payment, and the Sh40,000 paid before institution of the suit.

“This finding neither extinguishes the underlying hospital debt nor amounts to a finding that the 1st Appellant (Gari) can never be called upon to honour the guarantee. It means only that the guarantee could not properly be enforced against him in this suit before the contractual conditions for its enforcement had arisen,” said Justice Orina.