The High Court in Marsabit has temporarily suspended the implementation and enforcement of Kenyaβs new mandatory travel health insurance requirement for foreign visitors, putting on hold a government policy that requires non-Kenyans staying in the country for less than 12 months to have medical cover worth at least US$50,000, or about Sh6.4 million.
Justice Francis Rayola Olel issued the interim orders after two Marsabit residents challenged a Gazette Notice issued by Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale establishing minimum insurance benefits for foreign visitors. The court certified the matter as urgent and directed that the application be heard on September 16, 2026.
The order represents the first major legal setback for the mandatory inbound travel health insurance programme, which the government says is intended to ensure that foreign visitors can meet the cost of medical treatment during their stay in Kenya rather than leaving hospitals, healthcare providers or the State to absorb unpaid bills.
What the government had introduced
The contested requirement was contained in Gazette Notice No. 11492, published on July 30 and signed by Duale under the Social Health Insurance Act, 2023, and the Social Health Insurance Regulations, 2024.
Under the policy, foreign visitors entering and remaining in Kenya for less than 12 months would be required to have travel health insurance with cumulative benefits of at least US$50,000.
The minimum cover is divided among several categories. It includes US$20,000 for medical expenses, US$25,000 for emergency medical transportation, US$300 for prescribed medicines, US$1,000 for mental illness treatment and US$5,000 for the repatriation of mortal remains.
The policy is rooted in Section 26(6) of the Social Health Insurance Act, which requires non-Kenyans intending to remain in the country for less than 12 months to possess travel health insurance designated by the Health Cabinet Secretary. The accompanying regulations provide for insurance covering the visitor’s entire period of stay.
High Court challenge
The Marsabit case comes as the government’s insurance programme faces broader questions over how the new requirement was designed and how it would be administered.
The petitioners challenged the Gazette Notice and sought to stop its implementation, prompting the High Court to issue interim orders before the substantive dispute is determined.
The court’s decision does not, at this stage, permanently cancel the government policy. Instead, it temporarily prevents the authorities from operationalising and enforcing the notice while the court considers the application.
That distinction is important. The government may still defend the legal basis of the requirement when the matter returns to court.
A policy already facing wider scrutiny
The Marsabit case is not the only legal challenge facing the programme.
The Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK), together with Vantage Point Ventures, has separately moved to the Milimani High Court challenging the mandatory inbound travel health insurance programme. The petition questions aspects of the scheme’s legality, constitutionality and commercial structure and seeks orders suspending its implementation. That matter is scheduled for mention on September 29.
Among the concerns raised in the wider challenge is the process through which participating insurers were to be selected, as well as questions about whether the programme creates an unfair advantage for particular players in the insurance market.
The dispute therefore extends beyond whether visitors should have medical insurance. It also touches on procurement, competition, regulation and the administration of a programme involving potentially large numbers of international travellers.
Government’s case for the insurance requirement
The government has maintained that mandatory travel health insurance is aimed at closing an important gap in healthcare financing.
Foreign visitors can face significant medical expenses while travelling in Kenya, particularly when emergencies require hospitalisation or evacuation from remote areas. The government’s framework is designed to ensure that such costs are covered by insurance rather than transferred to Kenyan healthcare providers or the public health system.
Legal analysis of the policy notes that the Social Health Insurance Act and the 2024 regulations provide a statutory basis for requiring qualifying foreign visitors to have travel health insurance. The regulations also specify benefits such as emergency medical treatment, medical evacuation, hospital benefits, prescribed medicines and repatriation of mortal remains.
From the government’s perspective, the policy therefore fits into a broader effort to ensure that people accessing healthcare in Kenya have an appropriate mechanism for meeting the cost of that care.
Concerns over tourism and implementation
The requirement has nevertheless generated concern within the tourism and travel sectors.
Critics have questioned whether visitors who already purchase comprehensive international travel insurance could be forced to obtain additional cover, potentially increasing the cost and complexity of travelling to Kenya. Concerns have also been raised about the impact of additional requirements on Kenya’s competitiveness as a tourism destination.
The insurance industry, meanwhile, stands to play a significant role if the programme eventually takes effect. The Gazette Notice requires the insurance cover to be provided by insurers approved and licensed under Kenya’s Insurance Act.
The government has also linked the policy to the country’s wider health-insurance framework, which distinguishes between foreigners staying for less than 12 months and those intending to remain longer.
What happens next?
For now, the High Court’s interim order means the government cannot proceed with enforcement of the disputed requirement in the manner contemplated by the suspended notice.
The next significant date is September 16, when the Marsabit court is expected to hear the application. The outcome could determine whether the suspension remains in place as the substantive legal challenge proceeds.
The separate Milimani case will also be closely watched, with a mention scheduled for September 29.
The legal battles could ultimately determine not only whether Kenya can require foreign visitors to carry a specified level of health insurance, but also whether the government’s chosen method of implementing the programme meets constitutional, regulatory and competition requirements.
For travellers, the immediate development brings temporary relief from a policy that would have imposed a minimum US$50,000 insurance threshold. For the government, however, the suspension is likely to intensify scrutiny of a programme it sees as an important component of protecting Kenya’s healthcare system from unpaid foreign visitors’ medical bills.
What began as a health-financing measure has now become a wider test of how far the government can go in regulating the entry of foreign visitors and how such regulation must balance public healthcare interests, consumer rights, tourism and the rule of law.
