The High Court in Marsabit has upheld the government’s requirement for foreign nationals visiting Kenya for less than 12 months to have travel health insurance with minimum coverage of $50,000 (approximately Sh6.4 million), dismissing a constitutional petition challenging the policy.
Justice Francis Rayola Olele ruled that Gazette Notice No. 11492, issued on July 30, 2026, and its accompanying explanatory memorandum were validly issued under the Social Health Insurance Act and its regulations.
The petition was filed by Edow Issack Mohammed and Zhulekha Mohamed Edin, who challenged the mandatory insurance requirement, arguing that it was unconstitutional, ambiguous and improperly granted immigration officials powers to verify insurance policies.
The petitioners argued that the Gazette Notice restricted acceptable travel insurance to providers licensed under the Insurance Act without establishing clear criteria for approval. They also challenged a subsequent clarification allowing travellers to use insurance policies issued in their countries of origin, provided the cover met the prescribed requirements.
They further contended that the policy unlawfully transferred insurance regulatory responsibilities to the Directorate of Immigration Services, which they argued lacked the legal mandate and technical expertise to regulate insurance providers.
However, Justice Olele rejected the arguments, finding that immigration officials were only required to verify compliance with a condition of entry and had not been granted powers to license or regulate insurance companies.
“The said gazette notice and the accompanying explanation did not purport to amend the insurance regulatory framework nor did it introduce any additional approval requirement,” the judge held.
The court noted that Section 26(6) of the Social Health Insurance Act requires non-Kenyans intending to stay in Kenya for less than 12 months to have travel health insurance designated by the Cabinet Secretary for Health. The regulations provide for insurance benefits covering specified medical needs, including emergency medical expenses, medical evacuation, hospital treatment, repatriation of mortal remains and prescribed medicines.
The petitioners also raised concerns about the collection and transmission of travellers’ health insurance information through Kenya’s Electronic Travel Authorisation (eTA) system, arguing that the process raised questions about the privacy and security of personal data.
Justice Olele found that the concerns were generalised and that the petitioners had not demonstrated that travellers’ information was insecure. He noted that existing safeguards under the Data Protection Act and the Digital Health Act applied. The court also rejected the argument that the government had introduced the requirement without first establishing the necessary policy framework.
Justice Olele said an administrative framework for implementing the mandatory inbound travel health insurance programme had been developed in November 2025, several months before the Gazette Notice was issued.
The ruling clears the way for the government to enforce the mandatory travel health insurance requirement for foreign visitors staying in Kenya for less than 12 months, subject to applicable regulations and exemptions.
The decision also clarifies the respective roles of immigration officials and the Insurance Regulatory Authority, with the former responsible for verifying compliance with entry requirements and the latter retaining its mandate to regulate insurance providers.
Justice Olele ordered each party to bear its own costs, citing the public-interest nature of the case.
