The Vihiga High Court has refused to issue an interim order to stop the 2% Health Information Management System (HIMS) utilisation fee deducted from Social Health Authority (SHA) claims payments to healthcare providers.
Justice Rueben Nyakundi ruled against the petitioners, who had sought conservatory orders to block the fee's deduction pending the hearing of their petition challenging its legality. The judge found the petition lacked a crucial affidavit supporting the Notice of Motion, leaving the court without sufficient evidence to assess the urgency or merit of the application.
The petitioners, including Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, Dr Magare Gikenyi, and Eliud Matindi, filed the case against SHA, Finsprint Limited, and nine other respondents. They argued that the 2% fee was unlawful, but the court noted that contested factual matters such as the fee's introduction, authorising legal instrument, Finsprint's role, and the amounts deducted required sworn evidence.
Key points from the ruling include:
- The absence of a sworn affidavit means the application cannot be properly considered.
- Allegations made in the motion or certificate of urgency cannot replace sworn testimony.
- Article 159 of the Constitution mandates justice without undue procedural technicalities but does not permit dispensing with proof.
- Orders impacting a national claims-payment system require a solid evidential basis.
Justice Nyakundi allowed the petitioners to rectify the omission by filing a duly sworn affidavit and all supporting documents within seven days. They were also instructed to serve all respondents and interested parties with the petition and related documents. The matter was set for mention on August 18, 2026, to confirm compliance and provide further directions.
The judge ruled that costs would be in the cause, and the decision was delivered on August 14, 2026.
