Nairobi Hospital has secured a reprieve from the Labour relations court in a Sh208.3 million employment dispute with its former CEO, Dr Allan Pamba.
This is after the judge blocked Dr Pamba from demanding payment of the entire amount, which he was awarded by court for unfair termination of his contract, pending determination of the hospital’s appeal at the Court of Appeal.
In the conditional stay of execution, the hospital must immediately pay Dr Pamba Sh9 million and deposit Sh27 million as security in a joint interest-earning account within 21 days.
The dispute arose after the court initially ruled in Dr Pamba’s favour on June 19, 2025, awarding him Sh208.3 million, comprising Sh36 million for unfair dismissal and Sh172.35 million for future lost income.
Hired in March 2020 at a monthly salary of Sh3 million, Dr Pamba’s three-year contract was terminated in October the same year on account of alleged unsatisfactory performance.
This was after his appraisal by the board of management chairperson Dr Irungu Ndirangu and the termination came immediately after the end of the probationary period.
He sued, and the Labour Relations Court ruled in his favour, stating that the termination was based on malice and bad faith.
He stated that the alleged unsatisfactory performance was aimed at painting him as a non-performer and to set the stage for his unlawful dismissal.
The hospital, aggrieved by the judgment, moved to the Court of Appeal and sought a stay arguing that immediate payment would cause substantial financial harm.
“By any parameters, that is a huge sum of money which requires a massive capital chest to meet,” the court remarked in the ruling.
Dr Pamba had opposed the application, accusing the hospital of attempting to delay justice and insisting that the full decretal sum be secured.
He argued that the hospital’s right of appeal did not override his right to execute the judgment and that the application was meant to frustrate him.
The hospital indicated that it was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
The court dismissed technical objections, including claims that the hospital’s new lawyers improperly filed the motion without court approval.
While acknowledging procedural gaps, the judge ruled that no prejudice was caused. Citing precedent, the court emphasized balancing the hospital’s right to appeal against Dr Pamba’s entitlement to the judgment’s benefits.
The judge noted the colossal award amount but found no evidence that Dr Pamba lacked means to refund the money if the appeal succeeds.
The hospital had submitted 2023 financial statements to demonstrate solvency and ability to pay the sums as ordered by the court, though Dr Pamba dismissed them as outdated.
He urged the court to disregard the financial statements because they were from two years before the current case.
Ultimately, the court imposed strict conditions to safeguard both parties’ interests, ordering the deposit within 21 days and allowing costs to follow the appeal’s outcome.
Regarding the hospital’s claim that “Dr Pamba’s means and sources of income were unknown” and that it would suffer irreparable harm if execution ensued, the court stated that the institution “did not show that he was a person of straw”.
In his case against the hospital, Dr Pamba stated that he was hounded out because of vested interests by one of the Board members at the time, including granting tenders to a certain company.
He highlighted the milestones he achieved while serving the hospital, including adding a seven-bed facility.
Another achievement, he said, was negotiating with the United Nations for a $10 million (Sh1.29 billion) investment for expansion of the facility, though the Board chairperson denied this and claimed that the deal was negotiated by the board members.
The chairperson also denied the assertions made against him by the former CEO, including allegations of repeatedly coercing and threatening him to ensure that a tender for security system installations was awarded to a particular company.
