Nkoyie v Kimemia & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E026 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7855 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that medical records cannot be used in civil cases without the patient's consent and threw out an illegally obtained report.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether medical records can be used in court without the consent of the owner
They cannot; medical records are protected private information under Article 31(c) and their use requires consent. The impugned report was obtained unlawfully, unprocedurally and without consent, contrary to section 5(2) of the Health Act.
The court accepted the Applicant's authorities holding that medical records are private information protected under Article 31(c). It found upon cross-examination that the report was meant for referral only and was not officially requested or issued by the health records custodian, so its procurement contravened section 5(2) of the Health Act and the owner's consent was absent.
Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in civil proceedings
Under Article 50(4), evidence obtained in violation of the Bill of Rights may be rejected in civil as well as criminal trials; the report was therefore inadmissible and was expunged.
Relying on Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v AG and Njonjo Mue, the court held Article 50(4) applies generally to fair hearings. Since the report was obtained illegally and without consent, its admission would offend Article 50(4), and it could not be used in court and had to be expunged from the record.
Whether the order of 25.02.2025 for cross-examination of the plaintiff on mental status should stand
It was set aside in its entirety because it was founded on illegally obtained evidence, with no prejudice to the defendants who may cross-examine at trial.
The earlier order allowing an enquiry into the plaintiff's mental capacity was based on the impugned report. Having found the report illegally obtained, the court set aside the order, noting the 1st Respondent would suffer no prejudice since the defendants retain the ability to cross-examine the plaintiff during trial.
Legal principles established
#- Medical records are private information protected under Article 31(c) of the Constitution and their use requires the owner's consent
- Evidence obtained in violation of the Bill of Rights may be excluded in civil, not only criminal, trials under Article 50(4)
Court orders
#- 1.The medical/mental health assessment report dated 17.09.2024 is expunged from the record
- 2.The order issued on 25.02.2025 allowing the cross-examination of the plaintiff so as to assess his mental status and/or capacity to sue is set aside in its entirety
- 3.Costs of the application are awarded to the Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the civil procedure framework; application under the Civil Procedure Rules (Order 32/Order 35 enquiry provisions invoked by parties)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nkoyie v Kimemia & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E026 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7855 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7855/eng@2025-11-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.