A private firm has moved to court seeking to stop the implementation of Kenya's Mandatory Inbound Travel Health Insurance Programme, alleging the scheme unlawfully favours selected private companies and undermines competition in the insurance sector.
Vantage Point Ventures Limited, in a petition filed at the Milimani High Court, argues that the Ministry of Health and the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) established and implemented the programme through an unconstitutional and procedurally unfair process.
The company claims the programme was structured around a limited pool of pre-selected insurers, with Kenya Re designated as the pool manager or principal participant and Minet Kenya Insurance Brokers as the intermediary and de facto administrator, without a transparent or competitive procurement process.
According to the petition, the arrangement amounts to regulatory favouritism by creating a predetermined commercial structure that benefits selected market participants while excluding others from competing on equal terms.
Vantage Point says it had previously developed an inbound travel health insurance product in partnership with Madison General Insurance Kenya and Madanes-Option (CYP), which received IRA approval in May 2023. The company says it subsequently invested in developing the product and its supporting reinsurance architecture before the approval was later withdrawn without adequate justification.
The petition also accuses the Competition Authority of Kenya of failing to investigate complaints alleging anti-competitive conduct, including price-fixing, market allocation, abuse of dominance and foreclosure of competing participants.
The company is asking the court to declare the implementation process unconstitutional and unlawful, arguing it violated constitutional principles of transparency, fairness, accountability and legitimate expectation.
A petition has been filed challenging the legality, constitutionality and implementation of the Mandatory Inbound Travel Health Insurance Programme, alleging procedural unfairness, unlawful regulatory actions and anti-competitive conduct. The petitioner alleges there are Show more
