Court battle as dialysis centre sues SHA over Sh22.6 million unpaid medical bills

The defunct NHIF headquarters in Upper Hill, Nairobi. (Photo: File)

By Carolyne Kubwa
Thursday, July 9, 2026

Listen to article

4 min listen

Audio reading is not supported on this browser.

Ready

Thanks for listening. Continue with a related story, or tap the speaker icon on the next page to listen.

SHA introduces fingerprint identification for children aged 7-17 seeking treatment

Lucy Mumbi · 1 day ago

Latest Stories

It argues that when NHIF was dissolved on October 1, 2024, all its functions, assets and liabilities were transferred to SHA, making the authority legally responsible for settling the debt.

The hospital further claims that the delayed payments have severely affected its operations.

It says the failure to settle the claims has resulted in loss of revenue, difficulties in paying staff salaries and suppliers, delays in acquiring medical equipment and expanding its services, and increased borrowing to sustain operations.

However, SHA has opposed the suit and urged the court to dismiss it, insisting it does not owe the hospital the claimed amount.

In its response, the authority says its records indicate London Medical & Dialysis Centre received Sh76,966,302 in payments between January 2022 and August 26, 2024.

SHA adds that the hospital's remaining claims are still undergoing various stages of processing.

According to the authority, Sh588,500 has been marked for discharge, Sh152,000 has been forwarded to the branch office, Sh28,500 has been forwarded to accounts, while claims worth Sh5,578,500 are listed as accounts payable. It also says claims worth Sh57,000 were returned to the hospital, while claims valued at Sh9,500 were rejected.

"Any claims reflected as accounts payable remain subject to audit, validation, approval and allocation of funds in accordance with the applicable law and public finance management framework," SHA states in its court filings.

The authority maintains that the processing status of the claims does not amount to an admission of liability and argues that the hospital has not proved the services were rendered in compliance with contractual and regulatory requirements or that the claims were verified and approved for payments.