How one woman’s 18-year legal battle has redefined informed consent and medical negligence in Kenya.
Imagine undergoing a surgical procedure only to find out later that something as significant as your cervix was removed without your knowledge and consent. Now imagine living with the physical, emotional and social consequences of that surgery, including urinary incontinence and stigma for nearly two decades.
This is the story of a woman in Kenya, a mother, wife, and professional, whose routine surgery turned into an 18-year journey for justice.
I. The Day Everything Changed
The Patient had a long and complex medical history involving gynecological issues, particulary pevic endometirosis. Between 2005 and 2006, the Patient underwent several gynecological procedures at local hospital and during a hysterectomy procedure, the Patient’s cervix was removed without her knowledge and informed consent.
Following a second corrective procedure, she developed a condition known as vesico-vaginal fistula (VVF) that caused her uncontrollable urinary leakage.
What followed from this botched procedure was years of pain, embarrassment, depression, and loss of intimacy for the Patient with her husband. However, after a failed corrective procedures in Kenya, the Patient sought further treatment in South Africa, incurring medical costs of over Kes. 7 million.
II. THE 18-Year Legal Battle Between The Patient and the Local Hospital
The patient eventually returned to Kenya after a successful surgery in South Africa. However, what could not be replaced was her cervix.
As a result, the Patient filed a legal suit against the doctors and the local Hospital in Kenya, claiming negligence, breach of contract, and violation of her rights, and the Court had to decide on the following issues: –
- Whether the doctors were negligent in their treatment and disclosure.
- Whether the local hospital should bear responsibility for what happened while she was under their care.
- Whether the Doctor obtained informed consent from the Patient and whether it was properly documented.
- Whether the Patient was entitled to compensation for the injuries, costs and suffering endured.
III. What the Kenyan Court Said and Why it Matters to You
The High Court of Kenya considered all these issues and, in June 2025, found that:
- The removal of the Patient’s cervix without her express and informed consent was unlawful and unethical.
- The failure to involve a urologist in a high-risk gynecological procedure, where bladder injury was foreseeable, breached the duty of care owed to the Patient.
- The doctors misrepresented their qualifications and did not provide full disclosure about the surgery risks or alternatives.
- The hospital could not escape liability merely by claiming the doctors were not employees. It owed the Patient a non-delegable duty of care.
- The consent forms were inadequately signed and no nurse witnessed the explanation of procedures, as required by protocol.
V. Beyond the Legal Language: Why This Case Matters to Patients, Hospitals and Medical Practitioners
Informed Consent is not Just Paperwork: This case underscores that informed consent is not just paperwork, it is a conversation. Patients must be made fully aware of:
- The nature of the procedure.
- The risks involved.
- Other alternatives available.
- And most importantly, Doctors must seek consent for each specific intervention.
Specialists must know their limits: Treating a patient with complex pelvic and bladder issues requires a multidisciplinary approach. A gynecologist ought not to have undertaken urological procedures without involving a urologist and other relevant medical experts.
Hospitals are not off the hook: Hospitals cannot deflect liability when harm arises from institutional failures. Even if a doctor is a private practitioner with admitting rights, a hospital is responsible for ensuring:
- The Hospital is competently staffed.
- There are safe and functional systems within the Hospital.
- There is adequate supervision of the Patient.
V. What This Means For the Future of Patient Care
Informed Consent in medical practice is not just a formality, it is a legal shield. This Judgement sets a precedent that patients have rights, and those rights must be respected and protected.
To every healthcare provider, this case sends a clear message: Consent is not a checkbox. It is a legal and moral commitment; and to every patient: You have the right to understand, to question medical procedures, and to say no when you do not feel comfortable.