The Court of Appeal has dismissed a case in which a Kakamega man sought compensation from a hospital, claiming it allowed his wife and newborn child to leave with another man after delivery.
In the judgment of Walutsachi v Mary’s Mission Hospital, appellate judges ruled that the hospital had no legal duty to detain the woman after childbirth, noting she was an adult who was free to leave with anyone of her choice.
The appellant, Sylvanus Manuel Walutsachi, told the court he had taken his partner, Mwanaisha Nanzala Mblinjiro, to Mary’s Mission Hospital in October 2017 while she was in labour.
According to court records, the woman delivered successfully but was discharged two days later and left the facility with another man, identified as Echesa, who was also listed as the child’s father on the birth notification.
Walutsachi sued the hospital, claiming negligence and seeking damages for emotional distress, saying he had suffered psychological trauma and business losses after losing both his partner and the child he believed was his.
A magistrate’s court dismissed the case, a decision later upheld by the High Court and now by the Court of Appeal.
Court’s Decision
Justice Mumbi Ngugi, delivering the main judgment, said the woman was a 21-year-old adult and the hospital had no legal obligation to hold her until her partner arrived.
“The only issue of law… was whether the respondent had a duty to detain the woman and child until the appellant went for her,” the court noted, concluding that detaining an adult patient would violate her rights.The judges added that courts could sympathize with the emotional pain involved but had no legal basis to award damages against the hospital.
A Personal Dispute, Not Hospital Liability
Justice P.O. Kiage observed that disputes arising from broken relationships or romantic betrayal fall outside the scope of hospital responsibility.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal analysts say the ruling underscores that hospitals are responsible for medical care but cannot be held liable for personal relationship disputes unless negligence or wrongdoing is proven.
The case highlights the legal limits of liability in emotionally charged situations, reminding patients and families that adult individuals retain the right to make personal decisions about discharge and companionship, even when those choices lead to painful consequences.