The High Court has cleared the government’s mandatory travel health insurance scheme requiring foreign visitors to carry cover worth at least Sh6.4 million.
Justice Francis Rayola Olel dismissed a petition by three Marsabit residents challenging the programme and ruled that the policy was lawfully introduced.
He found that Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale acted within the law, the Social Health Insurance Act, in issuing the Gazette Notice dated July 30, 2026. The court said the notice remains valid.
Cabinet Secretary for Health Aden Duale addresses journalists at Afya House in Nairobi on October 6, 2026, following Kenya’s first Ebola death.
Photo credit: Bonface Bogita | Nation
The notice requires non-Kenyans entering Kenya for less than 12 months to have travel health insurance, with cumulative benefits of $50,000 (Sh6.4 million) for medical expenses, emergency evacuation, medicines, mental illness treatment and repatriation of remains.
The cover includes at least $20,000 (Sh2.5 million) for medical expenses, $25,000 (Sh3.2 million) for emergency medical transportation, $300 (Sh38,700) for medicines, $1,000 (Sh129,000) for mental illness and $5,000 (Sh645,000) for repatriation.
The petitioners argued that the Health Cabinet Secretary could not assign Immigration officers a role in checking insurance because regulation of insurers belongs to the Insurance Regulatory Authority.
They also challenged the lack of clear criteria for insurers seeking approval, questioned the use of the electronic travel authorization system to collect insurance information and argued that the required policy framework had not been established.
They said the Gazette notice and a Health Ministry clarification created conflicting rules. The notice referred to insurers licensed under the Insurance Act, while the clarification allowed visitors to use qualifying insurance bought in their countries of origin.
The State rejected those arguments. Principal Secretary for Immigration and Citizen Services Belio Kipsang said Immigration was only checking compliance with a condition of entry and was not regulating insurance.
Medical Services Principal Secretary Ouma Oluga said Parliament had already created the insurance requirement under Section 26(6) of the Social Health Insurance Act, 2023.
Medical Services Principal Secretary Dr Ouma Oluga.
Photo credit: Dennis Onsongo I Nation Media Group
The provision requires a non-Kenyan intending to enter and remain in Kenya for less than 12 months to have travel health insurance designated by the Health Cabinet Secretary.
Section 26(7) requires the Cabinet Secretary to establish policy, regulatory and administrative measures to implement that requirement. Regulation 70 of the 2024 regulations sets the benefits the cover must provide.
The State told the court that a Ministry of Health administrative framework dated November 6, 2025 existed eight months before the disputed Gazette notice. The framework was developed by an inter-ministerial committee.
The court heard that visitors could upload qualifying policies bought in their home countries or obtain compliant cover from an approved insurer at designated official entry points instead.
Justice Olel rejected the petitioner’s argument that Immigration had acquired insurance-regulation powers, saying its role was limited to checking compliance with entry conditions.
“The said notice also did not vest the Immigration Department with authority. The role of the said immigration department is administrative,” the judge said.
The court found that the notice did not alter the insurance regulatory system. The Insurance Regulatory Authority remained responsible for licensing and regulation.
The court rejected the privacy challenge, saying the petitioners had not proved that the system collected information insecurely.
It also rejected the argument that international health rules were being used to override Kenyan law. Justice Olel said legal basis was the Social Health Insurance Act and regulations. The court noted that international health instruments allowed health measures for travellers but did not replace Kenyan law here.
“It is my finding that said gazette notice and the accompanying explanation did purport to amend the insurance regulatory framework nor did it introduce any additional approval requirement without prescribing the criteria for such approval, as it left the issuance of the said travel insurance to licensed insurers under the Insurance Act,” the court said.,
The judgment settles one dispute over a scheme that creates a new insurance market for foreigners intending to live in Kenya for less than 12 months.
Vantage Point Ventures on Kenya Re and Minet
In a separate Nairobi case, Vantage Point Ventures Limited is seeking disclosure of how 14 private insurers were selected and the legal basis for the roles assigned to Kenya Re and Minet Insurance Brokers.
Vantage Point says it formed a consortium with Madison General Insurance Kenya and Madanes-Option and submitted a proposal to the Health Ministry in November 2025.
According to court papers, the company later learnt of a separate arrangement involving “14 pre-selected insurers”, Kenya Re and Minet.
It wants the Government ordered to disclose selection criteria, evaluation records, contracts, reinsurance arrangements, payment systems and system-integration agreements.
Vantage Point says its own proposed reinsurance structure allocated 65 per cent to General Reinsurance Corporation, 20 per cent to Kenya Re, 10 per cent to ZEP-RE/PTA Reinsurance and five per cent to Africa Re.
The company also says it complained to the Competition Authority of Kenya over competition concerns, but the authority declined to investigate in June.
