High Court Halts Enforcement of Sh6.4 Million Mandatory Health Insurance for Foreign Visitors

The Marsabit High Court has temporarily blocked the implementation of a government directive requiring foreign visitors to Kenya to hold mandatory travel health insurance worth at least Sh6.4 million (US$50,000).

Justice Francis Rayola Olel issued the interim suspension following a petition filed by two Marsabit residents who challenged the legality of the Gazette Notice published by Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale.

Legal Challenge and Court Orders

Businessman Edow Issack Mohammed and activist Zhulekha Mohamed Edin argued that the Ministry of Health exceeded its legal authority by introducing the mandatory insurance linked to Kenya’s Electronic Travel Authorisation (eTA) system. They also raised concerns about inadequate public participation, unclear administrative frameworks, and data privacy risks.

The judge certified the case as urgent and ordered the suspension of the notice’s enforcement until the application is heard on September 16, 2026.

Details of the Insurance Requirement

• Foreign visitors staying less than 12 months must have inbound travel health insurance with minimum cumulative benefits of US$50,000 (~Sh6.4 million).
• The coverage includes at least US$20,000 for medical expenses, US$25,000 for emergency medical evacuation, US$300 for prescribed medicines, US$1,000 for mental illness treatment, and US$5,000 for repatriation of mortal remains.
• Insurance must be provided by companies licensed under Kenya’s Insurance Act.

Points of Contention

The petitioners contend that the government has not established a clear legal and administrative framework for the rollout. They highlighted contradictions between the original Gazette Notice and a later Ministry clarification allowing travellers to use qualifying insurance from their home countries.

They further argued that immigration officers lack the mandate to verify insurance policies, a role that should fall under the Insurance Regulatory Authority, and that the transfer of this responsibility is unlawful.

Concerns were also raised about the handling of travellers’ personal data through the eTA system, with no clear safeguards or cost implications explained by the government.

Next Steps

The petitioners have been directed to serve the government within three days. The government has 10 days to respond, after which the petitioners may file supplementary affidavits. Respondents include the Ministry of Interior, the Principal Secretary for Immigration, Health CS Aden Duale, the Principal Secretary for Medical Services, and the Attorney General.

This case follows similar challenges by other organisations questioning the mandatory insurance scheme and insurer selection.