Teachers withdraw case challenging migration to SHA
The Social Health Authority building in Nairobi.
Two teachers who had gone to court to challenge the migration of all tutors from a private insurance cover to the state-run Social Health Authority (SHA) have withdrawn their petition, bringing a sudden end to a case that had sparked intense debate over teachers’ medical benefits.
The petition, filed last month at the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kisumu, had contested the Teachers Service Commission’s (TSC) decision to transition thousands of teachers from the Minet/AON insurance scheme to SHA, effective December 1.
The petitioners argued that the move was unlawful and risked disrupting healthcare access for educators. However, when the case was called for a hearing on Wednesday, the court noted that the petitioners no longer wished to pursue the matter.
The court confirmed the withdrawal and closed the file, stating that no substantive orders would be issued since the case had been terminated at the petitioners’ request.
This means none of the declarations or orders sought—including those questioning the legality of the migration—will be considered.
Before withdrawing the case, the petitioners had sought a court declaration that the transition was unconstitutional, unlawful, and irrational. They argued that the decision violated multiple constitutional rights and that SHA, as a statutory fund, could not replace an insurance scheme negotiated as part of teachers’ employment terms.
Additionally, they requested orders to nullify the migration and compel the government to reinstate the previous private insurance cover or lawfully procure a new one.
The petitioners had also sought interim orders to halt the implementation of the shift and prevent salary deductions linked to SHA until full legal compliance was confirmed.
Furthermore, they asked the court to direct the respondents—the TSC, the Ministry of Health, and the National Treasury—to release procurement records, actuarial assessments, and policy documents related to the decision.
In their arguments, the petitioners contended that the transition would significantly alter the teachers’ employment terms and leave thousands without adequate medical coverage.
They warned that teachers undergoing treatment for chronic conditions, including cancer, dialysis, and cardiac care, faced "immediate and irreparable harm" if the court did not intervene.
The petitioners also claimed that SHA, unlike a traditional insurer, could not provide indemnity-based guarantees such as emergency evacuations, overseas referrals, or coverage for complex medical procedures.
The Teachers Service Commission (TSC) headquarters in Nairobi.
They accused the TSC of bypassing public participation and failing to consult teachers or unions, in violation of constitutional provisions on fair administrative action and labour rights.
"The decision unlawfully alters teachers’ terms and conditions of service, contrary to Article 41 of the Constitution and the Employment Act, as medical insurance forms a fundamental part of employment benefits," the petitioners stated.
They further argued that the TSC had not provided actuarial studies, risk analyses, or procurement documents to justify the migration, raising concerns about its legality and feasibility.
Despite these arguments, the withdrawal means the court will not scrutinise the petitioners’ claims. The case had drawn significant attention, particularly among teachers uncertain about the scope of coverage under the new state scheme.
With the petition dismissed, the transition to SHA will proceed without further legal challenge from the initial petitioners.
The court confirmed the case’s closure and indicated no further directions would be issued. The SHA migration will now continue as planned, leaving unresolved the concerns raised by the teachers who had sought judicial intervention.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
