Court halts insurance cover requirement for tourists coming to Kenya

The High Court has blocked the government from demanding insurance cover from tourists visiting Kenya.

Justice Francis Rayola issued the orders in a case filed by Edow Mohammed and Zhulekha Edin, who argued that the decision by the Ministry of Health was a contradiction of that of the Ministry of Interior, which granted tourists an easy entry into the country.

“The notice of motion Application is allowed in terms of prayer two pending inter parties of the said application,” ruled Justice Rayola.

The two argued that in effect, the Aden Duale-led ministry was usurping the powers of  the Kipchumba Murkomen-led one to determine who enters the country or not.

“The directive is ostensibly ultra vires as the 3rd Respondent is purporting to direct the second respondent on the function of foreign nationals’ management, which is a preserve of the first and second respondents only to the exclusion of the third and fourth respondents under the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act,” their lawyer Charles Madowo argued.

He insisted that there is no proper mechanism put in place to handle the mandatory health insurance for inbound travellers.

According to Madowo, the salt in the injury was that the ministry intended to allegedly handle personal data outside the immigration services.

“ The rushed way the gazette notice has been published and the conflicting attempt at clarification is indicative of a premature rollout with a potential consequence of overburdening an already overburdened taxpayer through hidden costs or potential litigations,” he added.

This is the second case to be filed over the requirement that tourists will enter the country only if they have been insured by the Social Health Authority (SHA) for Sh6.5 million.

The Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek) filed its case before the High Court, arguing that the move was illegal as it was published without public participation.

Cofek sued the Health Cabinet Secretary and the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA). It also cited the Public Procurement Review Authority (PPRA) and the Digital Health Agency (DHA) as interested parties.

On July 30, 2026, the government issued a special gazette notice, indicating tourists needed to have inbound travel insurance.

The Stephen Mutoro-led lobby argued that the intended scheme is anchored on the Social Health Act.

He insisted that it was illegal for the government to issue a blanket gazette notice without showing how they arrived at the mandatory minimum amount and how the money collected will be accounted for.

Mutoro was of the view that the idea would cripple the tourism sector in the country, as well as affect other persons who are engaged in the travel business.

“I am aware that the impugned Gazette Notice introduces a compulsory statutory framework intended to govern travel health insurance for persons entering the Republic of Kenya and is capable of immediate implementation.”

“The impugned mandatory insurance regime is capable of directly affecting Kenya's tourism sector, inbound travellers, consumers of insurance services and the wider public by creating compulsory legal and financial obligations whose implementation has far- reaching constitutional, commercial and public interest implications,” argued Mutoro.

He stated that the lobby is not opposed to the measures to safeguard tourists’ health. However, he said, he was opposed to the introduction of the framework without compliance with the Constitution.

He said that upon a review of the gazette notice, it was unclear who was to be the preferred provider. At the same time, he added, it was also not vague on the methodology and criteria used to arrive at the figure and how the money collected would be accounted for.

He said that he took a look at the Social Health Insurance Act, the Social Health Insurance Regulations and other publicly available information relating to the impugned scheme.

“The petitioner has been unable to ascertain from the impugned Gazette Notice the framework governing the collection, custody, remittance, utilization, auditing and accountability of monies payable pursuant to the mandatory insurance regime. The Petitioner has also been unable to ascertain the institutional arrangements intended to govern implementation, oversight, digital administration, monitoring, enforcement and consumer protection under the impugned statutory framework,” claimed Mutoro.

He stated that there is a grave concern about how the requirement was gazetted, as the same was not made public before.

Mutoro was of the view that such a critical law could not be passed through a delegated legislative process.

“I further verily believe that unless the conservatory orders sought are granted, the Respondents are likely to proceed with the operationalisation and implementation of the impugned statutory framework pending determination of the Petition, thereby rendering these proceedings nugatory and compounding the constitutional violations complained of herein,” he argued.