Live update: Senators discuss governors snubbing summons
The main entrance at The Nairobi Hospital.
The Nairobi Hospital has moved to the High Court seeking to stop insolvency proceedings initiated by a security systems supplier over a disputed Sh51 million debt.
In court filings, the hospital argues that Opticom (K) Limited's insolvency petition is premature as their contract requires arbitration for disputes.
Lawyer Moses Owuor, representing the hospital, contends that Opticom breached contract terms by going directly to court.
"The jurisdiction of this court has been improperly invoked," Mr Owuor states.
"The alleged debt remains in dispute due to the supplier's failure to deliver specified equipment."
Court records show the dispute stems from the hospital's December 2023 rejection of security scanners installed by Opticom. The hospital claims the equipment differed from tender specifications but were delivered and installed without prior approval.
In addition, it states that the company supplied a different brand from the one specified in the tender biding documents.
“Upon inspection of the said equipment and internal review of the equipment delivered as against the equipment agreed to be supplied, the applicant (Nairobi Hospital) noted numerous inadequacies which rendered the machine supplied by the petitioner unsuitable for the applicant's use," Mr Owuor stated, noting the hospital demanded either compliant equipment or removal within 14 days.
The hospital also wants the liquidation proceedings stopped because they threaten essential healthcare services at the facility.
Delayed rejection
Opticom countered that the delayed rejection constituted acceptance, demanding full payment. The supplier has yet to respond to the hospital's application, though Justice Peter Mulwa granted 14 days for filing.
The heart of the legal dispute is that though the equipment was delivered and installed in September 2023, the Hospital communicated its rejection in December the same year.
This encouraged the company to argue that the delayed rejection was equal to acceptance of the equipment.
The case is scheduled for mention of November 6, 2025, for further directions.
