Tension and drama in court over Nairobi Hospital board wrangles

Drama ensued on Thursday during a case filed over leadership wrangles at the Nairobi Hospital.

In a tense session, High Court Judge Nixon Sifuna urged non-lawyers to step out for a private conferencing session.

Lawyer Peter Wanyama, who was representing Dr. Barcley Onyambu, who was allegedly ousted as chair, repeatedly urged the judge to withdraw from the case after he declined to adjourn the case or join other parties who wanted to intervene.

The judge also directed that Wanyama file a formal application for recusal.

When the judge asked Wanyama to sit down, he declined. When the Judge asked senior lawyer Ochieng Oduol to address the court, Wanyama continued standing, insisting that his oral application for the judge’s recusal must be heard first.

“ Mr Wanyama, make a formal application. Mr Oduol continue,” the judge said.

Wanyama replied: “ If you want to disrupt these proceedings, we will. You are being unfair.”

“ Wanyama, sit down,” directed Justice Sifuna.

“I will not sit down. You have a duty to hear my application. I will not sit down,” replied Wanyama.

The judge directed Oduol to proceed with his application for contempt.

When Oduol started talking, Wanyama interjected and said: “ I want to make an oral application for recusal. You have no jurisdiction to hear the application. You have made up your mind against my client. There is no fire on the roof.  You are paid by the taxpayer to hear us, and we are not happy about how you are treating us. I am making an application for your recusal.”

The Judge had ordered the hospital’s Chief Executive Officer, Felix Osano, the hospital’s secretary, Gilbert Nyamweya and embattled chairman Onyambu to appear in person for a hearing on an application for contempt.

However, lawyers of three board members -Dr. Agnes Gachoki, Prof. John Mwero and Eric Okeyo sought audience before the Judge commenced to hear the application, which was being prosecuted by senior lawyer Oduol.

Lawyer Duncan O’Kobasu, who was representing Gachoki in the case, asked the Judge first to allow her to join the case as a party. In addition, he urged the court to permit her to contest the extension of court orders prohibiting Onyambu from managing the hospital's affairs as chair.

“The contempt proceedings are essentially against board members and the secretary; hence, they have a say. We ask that you vary the orders and allow my client to be enjoined to participate in the contempt proceeding. The court also gave orders, and we want to have a say on whether they should be extended today. We want to oppose their extension,” argued Okubasu.

Mwero and Okeyo, through lawyer Odero, also asked the court to consider their application to be enjoined in the case, as they had a separate one before the magistrate’s court against Manyora’s taking over as the chair.

Senior lawyer Kiragu Kimani, who came on board for Osano on Thursday, also rose and said the contest was whether the person who had filed for the contempt application was telling the truth.

However, tension began to build up after lawyer Oduol accused Onyambu’s lawyer, Peter Wanyama, of disrespecting the court. He said that his colleague was ‘ shouting and addressing the court as if he was addressing villagers.

The statement did not go well with Wanyama, who rose and claimed that Oduol was trying to intimidate him.

Justice Sifuna attempted to ease the session with humour, saying he was a villager, and added that he was keen and would make a determination either way.

However, Oduol was emphatic that he was displeased about how his colleague addressed the court.

“I have no apologies to make on how the advocate has addressed the court… We are setting a very dangerous precedent; we have younger advocates to mentor. He may not like it, but it is a fact,” replied Oduol.

He then urged the Judge to dismiss the applications, arguing that they were a delay tactic to avoid hearing the contempt application. According to him, those summoned did not show a sense of apology, but were exhibiting bravado.

“We have proceedings before this court, orders were made, and they remain unless applications are filed for review or an appeal. What you see are applications to derail the proceedings. You ordered that the defendants appear before this court and file affidavits to explain.

"Those orders were in personam against the CEO, ex-chairman and company secretary. To confuse issues, we now have applications by persons citing themselves as interested parties. The orders are not against them,” argued Oduol.

Justice Sifuna dismissed the applications.

Senior lawyer Kiragu rose and urged the court to allow him more time with Osano before the hearing of the contempt application. He suggested that the case be adjourned until next week. But the judge cut him short, saying that the court had spent the entire morning and part of the afternoon on the case.

Kiragu replied that he understood that the court had declined to hear him.

“You cannot prejudice my client, and you have made it clear you have not made a determination,” he said.

In response, Oduol argued that all the opposing sides had been presented by lawyers before, but changed them at the last minute.

The judge issued another direction, stating that the application would continue.

“The change of advocate cannot derail proceedings. There were 10 days for the respondents to file their proceedings. There is no compelling reason why these proceedings should be adjourned,” he said.

Odero then applied to have the case adjourned, this time saying he needs to appeal.

Justice Sifuna, however, overruled him, saying his clients were not parties in the case.

The case continues on August 22, 2025.