Legal challenge to teachers’ SHA medical transition withdrawn, court closes file
The petition, lodged last month before the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kisumu, had sought to block the nationwide transition from the Minet/AON medical cover to SHA, a change the TSC intended to roll out from December 1.
A legal battle questioning the Teachers Service Commission's (TSC) decision to move all tutors from a private health insurance scheme to the state-operated Social Health Authority (SHA) has come to an unexpected close after the two teachers who initiated the case abruptly pulled out.
The petition, lodged last month before the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kisumu, had sought to block the nationwide transition from the Minet/AON medical cover to SHA, a change the TSC intended to roll out from December 1.
More To Read
- TSC confirms shift to SHA cover for teachers from December 1
- SHA medical scheme for teachers launches midnight amid system errors, legal challenge
- TSC sued over teachers’ migration from MINET insurance to SHA
- Teachers’ Unions demand clarity as TSC plans to move 400,000 educators to state health scheme
- Teachers’ unions reject plan to migrate them from Minet to SHA, demand proper consultation
- KUPPET threatens strike over government plan to scrap Minet teachers' medical scheme
The two educators had argued that the shift was illegal and posed a threat to teachers' access to essential healthcare services.
But when the matter came up for hearing on Wednesday, the court was informed that the petitioners no longer wished to proceed.
The presiding judge allowed the withdrawal and ordered the file closed, noting that the decision effectively extinguished all the issues raised in the suit.
With the case terminated at the petitioners' request, the court stated that it would not issue any substantive orders or examine the legality of the migration.
Before abandoning the matter, the teachers had been asking the court to declare the transition unconstitutional, irrational, and a violation of multiple constitutional guarantees.
They maintained that SHA, being a "statutory health fund, could not replace a negotiated insurance scheme that formed part of their employment benefits."
They had also sought orders stopping the implementation of the new arrangement, freezing salary deductions linked to SHA, and compelling the TSC, the Ministry of Health, and the National Treasury to disclose procurement contracts, actuarial analyses, and policy documents used to justify the transition.
The petitioners further warned that the move would fundamentally alter teachers' terms of service and expose thousands of educators to inadequate medical cover.
In particular, they argued that tutors battling chronic illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, and kidney failure risked suffering "irreparable and immediate harm" if the court did not intervene.
They insisted that SHA lacked the indemnity-based protections offered under traditional insurance, including air evacuations, overseas referrals, and specialised treatment for complex medical conditions.
The teachers also accused the TSC of sidelining educators and their unions, claiming the decision was made without public participation or meaningful consultation, contrary to constitutional requirements on fair administrative action.
With the withdrawal now on record, the highly contested debate over teachers' medical benefits shifts back to the administrative arena, leaving unanswered questions about the future of the profession's healthcare framework.
Top Stories Today
