The High Court in Marsabit has temporarily suspended the implementation of a government directive requiring all foreign visitors entering Kenya to obtain travel health insurance with a minimum cover of US$50,000 (about Sh6.4 million), pending the determination of a constitutional petition.
Justice Francis Rayola Olel issued conservatory orders on August 21, halting the enforcement of Gazette Notice No. 11492, which introduced the mandatory insurance requirement under the Social Health Insurance Act, 2023.
The orders followed a petition filed by Edow Issack Mohammed and Zhulekha Mohamed Edin, who argue that the directive is unconstitutional, procedurally flawed and exceeds the legal powers of the Ministry of Health.
The contested policy was gazetted by Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale on July 30 and requires foreign visitors to hold health insurance covering at least US$20,000 for medical expenses, US$25,000 for emergency medical evacuation, as well as additional benefits for repatriation, mental illness and prescribed medicine
The petitioners contend that the policy was introduced in a rushed and contradictory manner, arguing that the Ministry of Health later clarified that visitors could use existing insurance policies from their home countries provided they met the required minimum cover.
They argue that the clarification creates uncertainty and unfairly favours certain insurance providers.
In their court documents, the petitioners further argue that the Ministry of Health has no legal mandate to impose conditions for entry into Kenya, saying that responsibility rests with the Ministry of Interior and the Directorate of Immigration Services under the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011.
They also accuse the ministry of encroaching on the functions of the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) by effectively determining which insurers may provide the cover.
Additionally, they claim that requiring travellers to upload personal health information through the Electronic Travel Authorisation (eTA) system violates the constitutional right to privacy under Article 31.
“Furthermore, the implementation of the gazette notice would require additional
resources and imminently the enhancement of the eTA system and without elaboration
of the source of financing, it must be presumed that the same will be done at the taxpayers cost a tax payer who is already overburdened,” read the court documents.
Justice Olel certified the matter as urgent and directed the petitioners to serve all respondents within three days.
The respondents will have 10 days after service to file their responses, while the petitioners may file a supplementary affidavit within five days thereafter.
The case will be heard inter partes on September 16, 2026.
“The Notice of motion Application is allowed in terms of prayer (2) pending inter parties of the said Application,” ruled the court.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
