The High Court has ordered the Aga Khan University Hospital to release the body of a retired Nigerian military officer who died last month while receiving treatment, allowing the family to proceed with burial arrangements.
According to nation.africa, Justice Lawrence Mugambi directed the hospital to release the body of Air Vice Marshal Terry O Okorodudu (Rtd), who died at the facility on September 9, 2025.
The judge, however, directed Mr Bidemi Okorodudu, the son of the former military officer, to deposit his passport in court and not to leave the country, pending the determination of a disputed bill of Sh9.8 million.
Alternatively, Justice Mugambi said Mr Bidemi should deposit Sh8 million in court, as a condition for the release of the body for burial.
“It is also necessary to consider the apprehension by the respondent (Aga Khan) that the petitioner applicant (Mr Bidemi) is a Nigerian citizen who could possibly leave the jurisdiction of the court, thereby frustrating the efforts by the respondent to recover the amount that may be found due, even if the hospital were to recover civil remedies because of extra-territorial jurisdiction,” said the judge.
The court observed that even as the family insisted on the right of the body to be released, the hospital too deserved protection to ensure the right to demand its rightful dues are protected.
Justice Mugambi said Mr Okorodudu, who was admitted to the hospital on July 25, 2025, had full knowledge that the Aga Khan is a private hospital where he would be required to settle the bills. The judge said the hospital performed its part.
“Alternatively, the petitioner shall deposit Sh8 million in court pending judicial determination of the dispute as to the payment of the outstanding medical bill,” said the judge.
Mr Bidemi accused the hospital of unlawfully detaining the remains of the retired serviceman over an outstanding bill of Sh9.8 million.
He argued that holding a body as security for a debt is unlawful, unconstitutional, and against public policy.
He said in an affidavit that the family was undergoing immense anguish, humiliation and trauma, that cannot be adequately compensated by damages, if the body was not urgently released for interment.
Mr Bidemi said his father was a distinguished serviceman of the Nigerian Air Force and that arrangements have been made for his military burial by the Nigerian government.
“The continued unlawful detention of his body risks causing serious diplomatic embarrassment to both Kenya and Nigeria,” he said.
The Nigerian said even if any sums were due, the hospital had adequate legal avenues to recover them under relevant laws.
Standard of care
He argued the Foreign Judgments (reciprocal enforcement) Act provides a framework for the reciprocal enforcement of debts and judgments between Kenya and Nigeria.
The family disputed the accuracy of the bill, raising issues with the standard of care offered to the retired military man, which they said led to complications, the high hospital bill and eventually his demise.
The family sought immediate and unconditional release of the body, an injunction restraining the hospital from interfering with the burial, and orders to allow the repatriation of the remains to Nigeria for a military funeral.
The Aga Khan University Hospital said the son executed a guarantee of payment for healthcare services to be rendered to his father, and that the case was an attempt to run away from honouring the guarantee.
The hospital’s Patient Services Business Department Manager, Jackson Awuor, said Mr Okorodudu required highly specialised treatment for multiple complications when he was admitted.
The hospital said the retired military officer was a high-risk, elderly patient and his treatment required a multi-disciplinary team of doctors comprising of specialists from cardiology, critical care, pain management and nursing, among others.
According to the hospital, the failure to pay bills risked paralysing its operations with the net effect of depriving other needy patients treatment and care.
The hospital presented signed consent forms and medical reports to counter allegations of negligence, noting that the petitioner had consented to risky procedures but later accused doctors of negligence.
The case will be heard on February 10, 2026.
