By The Weekly Vision Court Reporter
The High Court of Kenya has awarded Ksh 157,207,524.20 in damages against a prominent Nairobi gynaecologist and Aga Khan Hospital, after finding both the doctor and the institution liable for a botched 2006 surgery that left a patient with life-altering injuries. The ruling, delivered nearly two decades after the case was first filed, raises pointed questions over how Aga Khan Hospital vets the practitioners it allows to operate within its walls, and how many others with similarly troubled professional histories may still be on its payroll.
In Naila Qureshi & Another v Dr Raffique Parker & 2 Others (Civil Suit E610 of 2007) [2025] KEHC 13512 (KLR), delivered on 4 June 2025, Justice Alexander Muasya Muteti held that Aga Khan Health Services Kenya bore both vicarious and corporate liability alongside Dr Raffique Parker, the consultant gynaecologist who performed the disputed procedure. Dr Naji Said, a urologist involved in the patient’s post-operative care, was absolved of any negligence.
Naila Qureshi was admitted to Aga Khan Hospital between 13 and 16 September 2006, seeking treatment for pelvic endometriosis. She had consented to the removal of her uterus and ovaries, to be carried out by Dr Parker. During the operation, the court found, Dr Parker removed her cervix without proper informed consent and employed an alternative surgical approach to the one agreed.
Her bladder was damaged in the process, resulting in a vesico-vaginal fistula, an abnormal connection between the bladder and vagina causing continuous urinary leakage and chronic pain. The injury led to scarring, loss of sexual function, and a cascade of complications that required years of corrective treatment, including specialist care sought in South Africa, where the full extent of the negligence was confirmed. Qureshi and her husband, Kailesh Jobanputra, who was named as the second plaintiff for loss of consortium, filed the case in 2007. It took nearly two decades to reach judgment.
Justice Muteti found Dr Parker grossly negligent, ruling that the unauthorised removal of Qureshi’s cervix violated Section 9 of Kenya’s Health Act, which enshrines the principle of informed consent. The judgment held that consent is not a formality but a cornerstone of ethical medical practice, drawing on principles comparable to those set out in the UK case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board.
Central to the finding against the hospital was evidence that Dr Parker had previously faced professional sanctions in Uganda, including being disbarred from practice there, information the court found the hospital allegedly knew, or ought to have known, before permitting him to operate. The judgment also cited the hospital’s failure to equip its facility with essential diagnostic tools, such as a flexible cystoscope, which might have enabled earlier detection of the bladder injury.
The case arrives at a pivotal moment for Kenya’s private healthcare sector, which continues to expand and compete for patients seeking higher standards of care. The ruling reinforces constitutional protections under Article 43 and obligations under the Health Act, while aligning Kenyan jurisprudence with international standards on informed consent.
The court’s finding that the hospital knew or ought to have known about Dr Parker’s disciplinary history in Uganda points to a vetting gap rather than an isolated lapse, one likely to be cited in future medical negligence litigation and to prompt renewed scrutiny of credentialing standards across the private hospital sector.
For Qureshi and Jobanputra, the judgment closes a painful chapter after nineteen years of litigation. It stands as one of the more significant medical negligence rulings in Kenya’s courts in recent years and is expected to be widely cited as the judiciary continues to develop its jurisprudence on patient rights, informed consent, and institutional accountability in healthcare.
