The High Court in Nairobi is set to deliver a crucial ruling on September 29 determining whether foreign nationals entering Kenya, including South Sudanese citizens, must hold travel health insurance valued at at least $50,000. Issued under Kenya’s Social Health Insurance Act of 2023, this mandate has sparked intense legal debate, with petitioners arguing that the scheme was implemented unlawfully to favor selected insurance companies.
Gazetted by Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale, the controversial regulations require every foreign visitor entering Kenya to possess a health policy covering a minimum of $50,000. This mandate includes up to 2.5 million Kenyan shillings for medical expenses, 3.2 million Kenyan shillings for emergency air evacuation, and over 640,000 Kenyan shillings for local repatriation costs.
This policy is of particular concern to South Sudanese nationals, many of whom travel to Kenya for medical treatment and leisure, cementing Nairobi as the region’s healthcare hub. In a joint petition, Vantage Point Ventures and the Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK) are challenging the regulations, arguing that the Insurance Regulatory Authority has sided with specific companies—notably appointing Kenya Reinsurance Corporation as the pool administrator—while sidelining other market players offering compliant products.
The lawsuit also criticizes the Competition Authority of Kenya for failing to investigate alleged market manipulation and price-fixing.
Upheld by the Court of Appeal, the Social Health Insurance Act No. 16 of 2023 establishes a framework for managing social health insurance in Kenya, aiming to set up the Social Health Authority and implement Article 43(1)(a) of the 2005/2010 Constitution of Kenya. Under the Social Health Insurance (General) Regulations, 2024, officially gazetted on March 8, 2024, every Kenyan household, non-Kenyan resident, state organ, and employer was required to register with the Social Health Authority by becoming a member of the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF) before June 30, 2024.
The law mandates salaried Kenyans to contribute 2.75% of their gross earnings, while those in the informal sector contribute 2.75% of their income, with a minimum monthly contribution of 300 Kenyan shillings. The regulations require foreigners visiting the country for over 12 months to register and contribute to the social health insurance scheme.
Earlier proposals to extend this requirement to all foreign visitors without duration limits received mixed reactions. Experts noted that similar policies already exist in destinations like the Schengen Zone, where visitors are required to have emergency coverage. Had such a broad regulation passed, over 1.5 million annual visitors would have been required to secure a travel health insurance policy, potentially boosting revenues for Kenya’s insurance industry.
South Sudanese citizens, alongside other foreign nationals, will be directly impacted if the High Court dismisses the challenge. Kenya has long remained a preferred destination for medical tourism in East Africa, with many patients seeking specialized treatments unavailable in their home countries. The mandatory $50,000 insurance requirement poses a significant financial burden for travelers, which could deter medical visits and impact Kenya’s healthcare sector.
The petitioners maintain that the scheme was implemented unconstitutionally and without fair competition, raising concerns regarding transparency and market fairness. They accuse the Insurance Regulatory Authority of favoring specific companies, thereby violating principles of open competition and fair market practices. The High Court is expected to provide direction next month on whether or not to suspend the policy when the case comes up for hearing.
