Nairobi Outpatient Centre Gulf Ltd & 1 other v Nairobi Outpatient Centre & 2 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL SUIT NO. E214 OF 2021 NAIROBI OUTPATIENT CENTRE GULF LTD..........1ST APPLICANT GRACE WANGARI MUTHUMA..................................2ND APPLICANT VERSUS NAIROBI OUTPATIENT CENTRE...........................1ST DEFENDANT GRACE WANGARI MUTHUMA..............................2ND DEFENDANT THE KENYA MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS DENTIST UNION.....................................................3 RD DEFENDANT FURTHER ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS 1) When the motion dated 3 rd September 2021 came up for intepartes hearing on 23 rd September 2021, Miss Amadi, learned advocate holding brief for Mr. Faraji for the plaintiff sought for leave to file a supplementary affidavit in response to the replying affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. 2) The plaintiff further applied for the interim orders issued on 9 th September 2021 to be extended to last until the next hearing date. 3) Miss Wafula learned advocate who appeared as holding brief for Mr. Kounah for the 3 rd defendant stated that he 3 rd defendant does not intend to oppose the plaintiff’s application. 4) Miss Maina learned advocate for the 1 st and 2nd defendants did not oppose the plaintiff’s application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit. The 1st and 2nd defendants however opposed the application for extension of the interim orders. They argued that the interim exparte orders has paralysed the operations of the 1 st and 2nd defendants without them being given a chance to be heard. In response, the plaintiff argued that the 1 st and 2nd defendants are actually using the plaintiff’s license and may pose danger to members of public thus damaging its reputation. 5) It is clear from the rival submissions that the plaintiff’s application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit in response to the 1 st and 2nd defendants’ replying affidavit is not opposed. Therefore the plaintiff is therefore granted leave to file and serve a supplementary affidavit. The other contentious issue is whether or not to extend the interim orders issued by this court on 9 th September 2021. 6) I have already considered the oral rival submissions. I have also perused the court record and it is apparent that the 1 st and 2nd defendants have filed another application dated 20 th September 2021 which is supported by an affidavit sworn by the 2 nd defendant dated 17.9.2021 in which they seek for the exparte orders issued on 9th September 2021 to be stayed and vacated. 7) It is stated that the exparte orders has had the effect of paralysing the operations of the 1 st and 2nd defendant despite the plaintiff having given the 2nd defendant its licence to continue operating the health facility. The aforesaid application is scheduled for interpartes hearing on 27th September 2021. 8) The plaintiff does not deny the assertion made by the 1st and 2nd defendants that the exparte order has paralysed their operations. 9) I think it is only fair and just not to further extend the interim orders until both parties are heard. Consequently, I direct that the motion

page 1 of 2