Two teachers sue to stop TSC's migration to Social Health Authority

The Social Health Authority / FILE

Two academic staffs have moved to the Kisumu Employment and Labour court seeking to overturn the Teachers Service Commission’s (TSC) decision to migrate all teachers and their dependents from the MINET medical insurance scheme to the newly established Social Health Authority (SHA).

The Petitioners, Peter Kodhek Amunga and Martha Omollo, filed the suit against TSC, SHA, the Ministry of Health, National Treasury, and the Attorney General.

According to court documents, the duo argues that the migration raises constitutional and legal concerns and could affect the welfare and rights of over 400,000 teachers nationwide.

At the heart of the petition is the claim that TSC issued a directive to discontinue the long-standing contractual medical insurance scheme offered through MINET, a licensed private insurance provider, and replace it with SHA, a statutory fund created under the Social Health Insurance Act.

The petitioners argue that this move fundamentally alters teachers’ terms and conditions of service without adequate participation by the stakeholders.

“The impugned move exposes teachers to serious risks, including lapse of cover, denial of treatment, lack of emergency evacuation guarantees, and loss of contractual rights previously enjoyed under the MINET insurance scheme,” they state in the petition.

They insist that the Constitution demands transparency, accountability, fair labour practices, public participation, and legal procurement processes.

According to the petition, adequate public engagement with teachers, their unions, and other relevant stakeholders should have been conducted prior to the decision, given its potential impact on employees’ rights and welfare.

Amunga and Omollo further contend that SHA is not an insurance provider and therefore lacks the legal and structural capacity to replace a contractual, indemnity-based medical cover.

Such a shift, they argue, undermines the constitutional right to the highest attainable standard of health.

The petitioners also point to the Social Health Insurance Act itself, stating that the law does not oblige TSC or any public employer to migrate employees from private insurance to the SHA fund.

They argue that SHA is legally established as a fund, not an insurer.

“SHA is established as a fund, not an insurance provider. The Act does not oblige TSC to migrate teachers from a private insurance scheme to SHA. Section 27 requires progressive and actuarially sound implementation, which has not been demonstrated,” court documents state.

As a result, the petitioners are seeking a raft of declarations and orders.

They want the court to declare TSC’s migration decision unconstitutional, invalid, and therefore null and void.

They also seek “a declaration that SHA, being a fund and not an insurance scheme, cannot lawfully substitute or replace the comprehensive medical insurance cover previously enjoyed by teachers under negotiated employment terms.”

In terms of remedies, they are asking the court to issue an order of certiorari to quash the migration directive, and an order of mandamus compelling the reinstatement of the teachers' medical insurance or the undertaking of a lawful, competitive, and participatory procurement process.

They are also calling for an order of prohibition restraining the respondents from enforcing the migration or deducting salaries toward SHA without compliance with the law.

The petitioners further ask the court to compel the respondents to produce all records, reports, procurement documents, actuarial assessments, and policy papers behind the contested decision, arguing that the move raises profound questions about governance, labour rights, and the rule of law.