The court has directed that a petition challenging the government's newly introduced Mandatory Inbound Travel Health Insurance Programme be mentioned on September 29 after the Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK) sought to suspend its implementation, arguing that it was rolled out unconstitutionally and unfairly.
The petition, lodged at the Milimani High Court by Vantage Point Ventures with the backing of COFEK, contests the legality and constitutionality of the programme established under Section 26(6) of the Social Health Insurance Act, 2023.
The legal challenge comes weeks after Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale published regulations requiring all foreign visitors entering Kenya to hold travel health insurance with a minimum cover of US$50,000 (about Ksh6.5 million).
Under the regulations, inbound travellers must have insurance covering up to Ksh2.5 million for medical expenses, Ksh3.2 million for emergency medical evacuation and Ksh644,000 for the repatriation of mortal remains, among other benefits.
According to the petitioners, the rollout of the programme breached constitutional requirements on transparency, accountability and fair administrative action, making the implementation process procedurally unfair.
They also claim the programme was designed to benefit a small group of pre-selected insurers, alleging that Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Limited was positioned as the pool manager or principal participant while other private insurers were assigned intermediary and administrative roles without an open or competitive procurement process.
The petition further accuses the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) of acting beyond its legal mandate by allegedly facilitating a predetermined commercial arrangement that favoured selected private insurers.
It also faults the Competition Authority of Kenya for allegedly failing to investigate complaints of anti-competitive conduct, including price-fixing, market allocation, abuse of dominance and the exclusion of rival insurers.
Vantage Point Ventures says that despite investing substantial financial and technical resources in developing the insurance product, it was left out of information submitted to the Ministry of Health, later instructed to seek fresh approval and eventually had that approval revoked without sufficient explanation.
"In particular, the Petitioner contends that its duly approved product was inaccurately omitted from information supplied by the IRA to the Ministry of Health, was subsequently required to undergo fresh approval, re-approved, and later had its approval withdrawn without transparent, rational and procedurally fair reasons," the petition reads in part.
Among the orders sought, the petitioners want the High Court to issue conservatory orders suspending the implementation of the disputed insurance framework and compel the disclosure of the criteria used to identify participating insurers.
The case will be mentioned before the Milimani High Court on September 29, 2026, when the court is expected to consider whether to suspend the mandatory inbound travel health insurance programme pending the hearing and determination of the constitutional petition.
