Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
No impairment found
What does “no impairment found” mean?
The regulator considered the case and found that the practitioner's fitness to practise was not currently impaired. No restrictions are imposed.
Concerning Bitrus Jugul Danboyi, doctor (General Medical Council 6145100).
Decision date: 3 December 2025 · Hearing started 24 November 2025 and ended 3 December 2025
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that the allegations of sexual motivation and pursuit of an improper emotional relationship with a patient were not proved against Dr Danboyi. The hearing concerned conduct during and after a consultation on 26 June 2024, including alleged inappropriate questions and contact via WhatsApp. As no facts relevant to impairment were found proved, the tribunal determined that Dr Danboyi's fitness to practise was not impaired and revoked an existing interim order.
Charges
The GMC alleged that on 26 June 2024, during a consultation with Patient A at Whipps Cross Hospital, Dr Danboyi inappropriately asked Patient A personal questions about having a boyfriend and where she lived, made comments about her appearance and taking her to a bakery, and handed her a note with his personal mobile number. The GMC further alleged that between 26 June and 4 July 2024 he took Patient A's number from her medical records for non-medical purposes; that on 4 July 2024 he telephoned her via WhatsApp and made suggestive comments; and that on 6 July 2024 he telephoned her and sent a message which he later deleted. The GMC alleged his conduct was in pursuit of an improper emotional relationship and was sexually motivated. Dr Danboyi admitted certain sub-paragraphs (handing over his number, making the calls and sending the message) but denied the accompanying 'inappropriate' characterisation and denied sexual or improper motivation.
Findings
The Tribunal found that the material disputed allegations were not proved. In particular, the Tribunal found that the alleged sexually motivated conduct and pursuit of an improper emotional relationship were not proved. Having found that the relevant facts were not proved, it followed that Dr Danboyi's fitness to practise is not impaired. The Tribunal revoked the interim order on Dr Danboyi's registration. In a postscript, the Tribunal commented that certain of his actions were capable of being misunderstood, noting that handing a personal mobile number to a patient should be done sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, and that contacting a patient at 07:04am without an emergency reason was unconventional.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.