Parliament examined Clinix's payments and ownership, hearing from Jayesh Saini, who introduced himself as its chairman. The dispute led to criminal proceedings and a separate civil claim against NHIF. The High Court's 2022 judgment records earlier criminal acquittals, awards Clinix payment under its pilot contract and rejects its later-contract claim.
High Court judgment delivered
The High Court delivered judgment in Civil Suit 35 of 2018 on 11 March 2022. Clinix won KSh16,522,666 with interest and costs under the pilot contract but lost its later-contract claim. The judgment also records the earlier criminal acquittals. This timeline covers the dispute through that civil judgment. Subsequent appeals, enforcement and payment of the award have not been verified.
Main story: 1 January 2012 to 11 March 2022. The full timeline also includes labelled context or related events.
20 events shown
The High Court later recorded that Clinix and NHIF signed their first contract in December 2009 for a six-month outpatient pilot. This earlier contract became a separate part of the payment dispute.
The 2016 parliamentary report records that the scheme rolled out on 1 January 2012. Its Clinix contract covered medical care for civil servants, members of the disciplined services and their declared dependants.
The Health Committee recorded that the Clinix contract was dated 1 January 2012 but signed on 15 February. The effective date and signing date were therefore different.
Clinix told the 2012 committee that NHIF released about KSh202.16 million in March, after the quarter had begun. The later parliamentary report identifies the payment as KSh202,161,187.50 for the first quarter. This was a payment to the provider, not a judicial finding of money lost.
In evidence recorded by the 2012 committee, Clinix said its payment depended on the members who selected it, rather than the number of branches. It disputed NHIF's branch payment schedule and said it used third-party providers where it had no outlet.
An attributed statement records what the speaker said.
EACC later told Parliament that the Ministry of Medical Services sent it a complaint dated 8 May 2012, forwarding a request from the Prime Minister's office. Its inquiry examined procurement, accreditation, member allocation and payments.
An investigation does not by itself establish wrongdoing.
Jayesh Saini appeared before the Health Committee, introduced himself as Clinix's chairman and testified under oath. He said he owned Pharma Investment Holdings, identified in the report as Clinix's 99 percent shareholder. The committee later reported that it could not verify his claim to own that holding company.
An attributed statement records what the speaker said.
The Health Committee's report alleged that KSh92.4 million linked to ten Clinix branches was irregularly paid because those branches did not exist at the relevant time. Clinix disputed the branch-based payment account. The 2016 follow-up report states that the House did not adopt the earlier committee's recommendations.
NHIF terminated the later Clinix contract by a letter dated 14 June 2012. Clinix challenged the termination and sought unpaid fees and damages. The High Court ultimately upheld termination of this contract in its 2022 judgment.
As described in the later High Court judgment, the Efficiency Monitoring Unit's November 2012 report found a hurried rollout and approval without prior inspection. Separately, the judgment records that many clinics were registered after the later contract began, while physical inspections confirmed staffed and equipped clinics existed.
The 2015 judgment records charges against Clinix, its chief executive Toddy Madahana and director Anthony Kalathil Chacko, alongside former NHIF chief executive Richard Langat Kerich and NHIF officials Marwa Fadhili Chacha and David Kipruto Chingi, in Anti-Corruption Case 18 of 2013. Prosecutors alleged a conspiracy involving KSh96,565,125 and capacity to provide services outside Nairobi. The 2022 civil judgment records acquittals in that case.
Justice Isaac Lenaola dismissed the judicial review applications seeking to stop the NHIF prosecutions, including Clinix's application. The court said the trials should determine the allegations and emphasized the presumption of innocence. This procedural decision was not a conviction.
Clinix operations director James Kinyua told the Health Committee that Clinix had continued providing services during the second quarter despite non-payment. He said the contract permitted use of other accredited facilities and maintained that the termination was defective. These were Clinix's positions, which the later civil court considered separately from the criminal case.
An attributed statement records what the speaker said.
Attorney General Githu Muigai told the committee that the board's constitution and the manner of termination exposed NHIF to legal claims. He considered payment due for services provided before termination. This legal opinion was not a court order, and the 2022 judgment later upheld the termination.
An attributed statement records what the speaker said.
EACC chief executive Halakhe Waqo told the committee that the commission's investigation had led to charges involving Clinix and NHIF officials, and that the Clinix criminal case was still pending. He outlined allegations of procurement and accreditation failures and payments for services not adequately rendered. The 2022 High Court judgment later records acquittals in Anti-Corruption Case 18 of 2013.
An attributed statement records what the speaker said.
The Health Committee recommended that the Director of Public Prosecutions review the providers' demands for payment and that NHIF coordinate with investigating agencies. Its report supported resolving outstanding obligations, but did not itself decide criminal guilt or award civil damages.
The 2022 judgment records that the witness statement of Clinix chief executive Toddy Madahana was filed on 25 January 2018 in Civil Suit 35 of 2018. Clinix challenged termination and sought KSh16,522,666 under the pilot contract, KSh202,161,187.50 under the later contract and additional damages.
A filing records a party's position. It is not by itself a finding.
NHIF's defence and counterclaim, dated 8 March 2018, alleged misrepresentation and breaches of the later contract. NHIF also argued that the criminal proceedings did not determine the parties' contractual liability. These were its pleadings, not the court's findings.
A filing records a party's position. It is not by itself a finding.
In deciding the civil dispute, the High Court recorded the earlier acquittals in Anti-Corruption Case 18 of 2013. It found that inspections confirmed staffed and equipped clinics existed, while also noting licensing and accreditation problems. This is the date of the civil judgment acknowledging those acquittals, not the date of the criminal verdict.
Justice M. W. Muigai awarded Clinix KSh16,522,666 with interest and costs under the first contract. The court rejected the KSh202,161,187.50 claim under the second contract for lack of the required proof of services and returns, upheld termination for Clinix's contractual breaches, and refused its additional damages claims. The award does not establish that payment was subsequently made.
Kenya replaced the National Health Insurance Fund with the Social Health Authority on 1 October 2024 under laws signed in October 2023, after a series of High Court...
Anglo Leasing is the name given to a set of Kenyan security and communications contracts signed from 2002 to 2004 that former anti-corruption chief John Githongo and...
In the early 1990s Goldenberg International received export compensation from the Kenyan government for gold and diamond exports that a later judicial commission...
Joseph Kabila led the DRC from 2001 to 2019 and became a senator for life after handing power to Felix Tshisekedi. After their coalition ended and the AFC/M23...
Coverage through 11 March 2022. Editorial review: 2 November 2026. Spotted an error? See corrections. Copyright concerns: report an asset. Every event links to its sources. Source type does not establish whether a claim is true.