Luco Njagi & 21 others v Ministry of Health & 2 others [2015] eKLR services to Kenyans who cannot afford to go to private hospitals; taken measures to combat cancer by enacting the Cancer Prevention and Control Act, 2012; and given free access to people living with HIV and AIDS free access to anti-retroviral drugs. With regard to the present case, the 1st respondent submits that the government has bought dialysis machines and subsidized the fee for accessing the services. The 1st respondent refers the court to the decision in Mathew Okwanda –vs- Minister for Health and Medical Services and Others Petition No 94 of 2012 in which the court found that in the absence of a focused dispute and sufficient material to show a violation of constitutional rights, it could not express itself on the issues in dispute. 36. With regard to the question whether the country had enough resources to meet its obligations under Article 43, the 1st respondent submitted that Kenya is a developing country which continues to encounter many constrains in fulfilling the rights and fundamental guaranteed in the Constitution. It relies on the decision in the Soobramoney case (supra) with regard to the considerations that the court should have in mind with regard to the needs that the state has to meet if it were to accede to the demands of the petitioners. 37. The 1st respondent submitted, finally, that the present petition falls within the purview of the political question doctrine and the issues that it raises are issues that the court refuses to deliberate because they properly belong to the decision making authority of elected officials. Counsel relied in support on Article 20 (5) (c) of the Constitution. It was his further submission that the country is in a transition period and under part 2 of the Fourth Schedule, health services are being devolved to the County Governments and this requires time, and that the government was committed to ensuring the realization of the rights set out in Article 43 of the Constitution and is taking legislative, policy and other measures to guarantee these rights to Kenyans. The Case for the 2nd Respondent 38. Kenyatta National Hospital, the 2nd respondent, has filed an affidavit sworn by Dr. Simon Monda, the Deputy Director of Clinical Services at the hospital, on 4th June 2013 and submissions dated 6th August 2013. 39. According to Dr. Monda, the Kenyatta National Hospital’s Renal Unit was opened in 1984. It provides services for treatment of medical kidney disease to the whole hospital and the dialysis at the Renal Treatment Unit is just one of the several treatment specializations that Kenyatta caters for. He states that dialysis is highly resource intensive, particularly on consumables, and requires, inter alia, enormous labour and specially trained human resources with specific expertise in the area to man the unit twenty-four hours every day. 40. According to the 2nd respondent, the cost of a single dialysis machine is about Kshs 1.6 million. The consumables per session for a patient cost about Kshs 4,500/= at the 2nd respondent, compared to Kshs 9,000/= in private hospitals, and the renal unit is therefore not considered a profit centre for Kenyatta National Hospital but instead as a significant cost centre considering the machines run non-stop. It is its case that as a result, the machines get really stretched most of the time; which inevitably leads to occasional mechanical failure that require both time and enormous financial resources to repair. 41. The 2nd respondent states further that the number of functioning haemodialysis machines at its renal unit varies according to the state of repair of the machines and the economic constraints at the hospital. The number has however ranged between 10 and 20 which, is below the ideal http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 8/18