Nairobi Hospital asks court to dismiss Sh32 million debt case

Nairobi Hospital on Tuesday urged the court to dismiss a case seeking its dissolution over an alleged  Sh32 million debt to a contractor.

In an application before Commercial Court Judge Peter Mulwa, the private hospital argued that Opticom Limited failed to honour its end of the bargain as it did not deliver a pedestrian scanning machine.

The hospital’s lawyer, Moses Owuor, said the agreement was that Opticom would deliver a specific brand of scanner, but it delivered a different one.

“The bid document expressly specified that the brand to be delivered as astrophysics XIS-3335 or an equal brand, subject to the approval of the applicant herein. However, sometimes in September 2023, and without prior approval by the applicant herein, the petitioner delivered and installed a different brand,” argued Owuor.

He said the firm supplied Eastimage – E15536, which was allegedly not up to the required standard. The lawyer argued that his client wrote to Opticom demanding that it delivers the specified brand or uninstall the machine it had installed within 14 days.

Instead, he claimed Opticom responded with a demand for Sh32 million. Justice Mulwa heard that Opticom allegedly argued that a delay in raising an objection simply meant the hospital had accepted the equipment.

Opticom, represented by CM Advocates LLP,  alleged that Nairobi Hospital owes it a debt. Although it did not disclose the amount owed, it sought the court’s sanction for a pound of flesh out of the hospital’s heart.

“The liquidation petition will be heard on Wednesday. Any person desirous to support or oppose the making of an order for liquidation may appear at the time for hearing in person or by their advocate for that purpose and a copy of the petition will be furnished by the undersigned or the court’s registry to any person requiring such a copy on payment of the regulated charge of the same,” reads the notice.  

In court, the firm asserted that it had done its part of the deal, but the hospital had either ignored or refused to pay the contested amount.

However, the hospital said the case was unnecessary as there was no evidence to show that the hospital was incapable of paying debts if the same were legitimate.