Ruth Njoki Watitu & Martin Ngari v Principal Secretary for Health & National Hospital Insurance Fund Board of Management [2016] KEHC 2622 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.  450 OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF  AN APPLICATION BY RUTH NJOKI WATITU & MARTIN  NGARI FOR  LEAVE  TO APPLY FOR  JUDICIAL  REVIEW  ORDERS  OF PROHIBITION  AND MANDAMUS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 8 & 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE  CONSTITUTION  OF KENYA  2010 ARTICLES  10,19,20,21,22,23,41,47,48,& 165

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HOSPITAL INSURANCE   FUND ACT   CAP 455

BETWEEN

1. RUTH NJOKI WATITU

2. MARTIN NGARI………………………………...........….APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOR HEALTH]

2.  NATIONAL HOSPITAL INSURANCE FUND

BOARD OF MANAGEMENT]   ..........................………RESPONDENTS

RULING

I have considered the chamber summons dated 26th September 2016, under certificate of urgency.  I certify it as urgent.

On the merits of the chamber summons which  seeks for leave to apply for  Review Order of prohibition and  mandamus, I note that the letter Annexture RNW1 which is  the subject of these  proceedings, in the last paragraph thereof  is clear that the applicants  as  employees  of the 2nd respondent  are being  called upon, on account  of a complaint, to respond  in writing, fully responding  to the issues  raised  in the complaint letter  which  was attached, from  Yano & Company Advocates, on behalf of their clients  Elizabeth  Mwihaki Nganga.

The employer’s letter also calls upon the applicants to show because why management should not take disciplinary action against the applicants.

On the other hand, the applicants   in their  application for leave  to apply  claim that the  employer, 2nd respondent  is threatening  to take disciplinary  proceedings  or suspension or interdiction or otherwise  acting  in any way  prejudicial  to the applicant’s  employment  when Kajiado CMCC488/2016 and HC Misc. Application 32/2016  are pending.

I have examined those two cases pending in court.  I note that the respondents herein are not parties to those suits, which concern the running of the Hospital Care Givers Community Hospital, Isinya.

I have  also perused  the letter dated  16th September  2016   which is  a reaction to the letter dated 7th September  2016  from Yano and Company  Advocates.

In my humble  view, as the complaint  relates to an allegation against  an  employee(s)  of the 2nd  respondent  getting  involved  in the affairs  of a hospital  which is  a beneficiary  of NHIF funding, and  with evidence from bank statements  of the said  hospital  showing that on  12th August  2016  the  1st  applicant  herein withdrew  shs  200,000 twice on each of those two occasions  from that  hospital account  with Equity Bank  A/C No, [particulars withheld], the only  way to deal  with that  issue  is by  way of the employer  seeking out the employee to give an  account of  what lies  in the complaint, which,  in my humble view, is  clearly set out in the employer’s letter   dated  16th September  2016.

In my view, the applicants  are  running away  from being  asked  by their  employer  to explain  their dealings with the said  hospital.  What the applicant have stated in their affidavits  in support and the statutory  statements  can very well serve  as their explanation  or show  cause before  the employer, which has in my view, in asking  the applicants  to show cause, has not  breached  any rules of natural  justice  in according   the  applicants an opportunity  to be heard on the complaint  against  them.

I do not find any prejudice to the applicants if they explain themselves to their employer on the issues raised.  Neither  do I find that the subjudice  rule applies  to these  proceedings  since there is nothing on record  to show that the applicants  disclosed to their employer  that they  are embroiled   in a legal dispute  over management  of the Care Givers Community  Hospital, Isinya.

In addition, although the 1st applicant claims that she is  a mere signatory  to the account  as a friend  to Regina Nganga,  and that she is not  involved   in the  affairs  of the hospital and  or as a beneficiary  thereof, her  own exhibits  which include  the bank statement with Equity  Bank betrays her at it  shows  that she  is the  beneficiary of shs 200,000 withdrawn on 12th August  2016  and she  has not explained  in her  affidavit  or statutory   statement how she became  a beneficiary  thereof  if she is not involved in the running of the said hospital  affairs.

Accordingly  I find that  the application  herein does not  raise an arguable  prima facie case  against the  respondents  to warrant  leave to apply for  Judicial Review  Orders which are discretionary in nature.  The same is premature and is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Orders accordingly.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

27/9/2016