The Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK) has moved to court seeking to suspend the government’s newly introduced Mandatory Inbound Travel Health Insurance Programme, arguing that the scheme was implemented unfairly and violates constitutional principles.
The petition, filed at the Milimani High Court by Vantage Point Ventures with support from COFEK, challenges the legality 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 introduced regulations requiring all foreigners travelling into Kenya to have mandatory travel health insurance with a minimum cover of $50,000, equivalent to about Ksh6.5 million.
Under the new requirements, inbound travellers must have insurance covering medical expenses of up to Ksh2.5 million, emergency medical evacuation costs of up to Ksh3.2 million and repatriation of mortal remains valued at approximately Ksh644,000, among other benefits.
According to court documents, the petitioners argue that the programme’s rollout was conducted without adequate transparency and public accountability, violating constitutional requirements on fair administrative action.
They claim the implementation process unfairly favoured a small group of selected insurers, alleging that Kenya Reinsurance Corporation was positioned as the pool manager or principal participant while other private insurers were given intermediary roles without a transparent or competitive selection process.
The petitioners have also accused the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) of exceeding its mandate by allegedly supporting a commercial arrangement that benefited specific private sector players.
The case further claims that the Competition Authority of Kenya failed to act on complaints regarding alleged anti-competitive practices, including possible price-fixing, market allocation, abuse of dominance and exclusion of other insurance providers.
Vantage Point Ventures alleges that although it invested significant financial and technical resources in developing its insurance product, it was excluded from information submitted by the IRA to the Ministry of Health. The firm claims it was later forced to seek fresh approval before its approval was eventually withdrawn without clear justification.
“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 states.
The petitioners are asking the High Court to issue conservatory orders suspending the implementation of the disputed insurance structure until the case is determined.
They are also seeking disclosure of the criteria used to select participating insurance companies under the mandatory travel health insurance programme.
The matter will be mentioned before the Milimani High Court on September 29, 2026, as the court considers whether to suspend the programme pending the hearing and determination of the constitutional petition.