High Court orders Ladnan Hospital to pay Sh3m over non-consensual surgery

By Benadeta Mwaura - Reporter

Kenya, December 20, 2025 -A Kenyan woman has won a landmark medical negligence case after a court ordered Ladnan Hospital to pay her Sh3 million in compensation for the unauthorized removal of her ovaries, a procedure she did not consent to, highlighting critical gaps in informed consent and patient rights in Kenya’s health care system.

The ruling comes as more medical malpractice and patient rights cases are being tested in Kenyan courts, shaping legal standards governing informed consent, surgical practice and compensation for harm. The woman, identified in court records as Grace Njoki Mulei, underwent surgery at Ladnan Hospital in early 2025.

What was supposed to be a targeted procedure turned into a broader intervention when both her ovaries were removed without her express consent, according to court filings. The High Court found that the hospital had failed to uphold the basic medical standard of informed consent, a foundational principle in Kenyan healthcare ethics and law, which requires that patients be made fully aware of, and agree to, all material aspects of a procedure before it is carried out.

In ordering Sh3 million in compensation, the court underscored that medical practitioners and institutions must not perform procedures beyond what a patient has expressly agreed to, and must provide clear, understandable information about risks, alternatives and expected outcomes before surgery.

In informed consent jurisprudence, Kenyan law and court practice, reinforced in several recent High Court rulings, treat consent as valid only if it is:

1. Voluntary, free of coercion;

2. Informed, based on explanation of nature, benefits, risks and alternatives; and

3. Given by a patient competent to understand the information.

A related High Court case in 2025, LLN v Pumwani Maternity Hospital, reaffirmed that even signed consent forms are insufficient unless the patient was meaningfully informed about the procedure’s nature and consequences.

Legal experts say that enforcement of informed consent strengthens patient autonomy and protects individuals from unnecessary or unwanted medical interventions. Although Kenyan medical law does not yet provide a standardized algorithm for every procedure, courts have increasingly emphasised that patient autonomy and dignity are core elements of professional medical ethics.

More from Kenya

Chelsea Stage Comeback to Secure Point at St James’ Park in 2–2 Thriller

Gaps in Kenya’s ornamental fish exports threaten revenue and environment

A 2025 judgment in a separate public hospital matter held that detaining patients or subjecting them to interventions without consent violates constitutional rights to dignity and freedom from arbitrary treatment. Medical negligence litigation in Kenya often hinges on whether healthcare providers acted within the standard of care expected of a competent medical professional, and whether the patient was adequately informed before treatment.

The Ladnan Hospital ruling sends a clear message to private and public healthcare providers: performing surgery beyond what patients have consented to can attract significant legal and financial penalties, particularly where it results in loss of bodily function or other serious harm.

Patient groups and legal advocates have welcomed the decision, noting that it strengthens the legal framework that holds medical facilities accountable for negligent or unethical conduct. They argue it will encourage more transparent communication between healthcare providers and patients.

However, the case also raises broader concerns about medical recordkeeping, follow-up care, histopathology procedures, and the ethical obligations of clinicians, matters that the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC) has repeatedly emphasised in professional practice guidelines according to KMPDC.

As Kenya’s healthcare litigation landscape evolves, experts believe patients will increasingly challenge procedures they did not fully understand or consent to.

The courts, in turn, have shown a willingness to uphold patient rights even where consent forms exist, prioritising substantive understanding over formal signatures.

For patients and practitioners alike, this ruling reinforces that informed consent isn’t merely a signed document, it’s a legal right foundational to ethical and constitutional medical care.