Firms battle for varsities medical insurance cover

Kenyatta University (KU) gate, April 2020. [Elvis Ogina, Standard]

Kenyatta University (KU) staff are now in limbo over their medical insurance, as two firms battle in court over the lucrative tender to offer in-patient and out-patient covers.

In a court case filed by Madison Insurance, it has emerged that Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) cancelled the contract issued to the firm after AAR complained against the university’s evaluation committee.

Aggrieved by PPARB’s action, Madison wants the High Court to reverse the decision. “Unless the impugned decision is quashed, the contract for the provision of staff medical cover for Kenyatta University staff will be in limbo, with the attendant risk of leaving thousands of staff and their families without medical covers,” claims Madison.

The two companies are embroiled in a vicious court battle over the Sh280 million insurance deal to offer medical cover. 

Madison Insurance has sued AAR Insurance, PPARB and KU’s Vice-Chancellor Paul Wainaina. The university last year published an advertisement, asking insurance firms interested in offering cover to its staff for 2021-2022 to float bids.

Madison, in papers filed before the High Court, maintains that it successfully bid for the tender. Thereafter, says the insurer, KU awarded the contract to offer in-patient and out-patience cover from December 12, 2021 to December 11, 2022.

“Following the signing of the contract dated December 11, 2021, insurance policies were issued by the applicant (Madison) in favour of the procuring entity, the previous polities having expired and the procuring entity’s staff could not remain uninsured.  Accordingly, the contract was fully performed between the parties,” argues Madison.

It emerged that PPARB cancelled Madison’s award and ordered KU’s evaluation committee to undertake a fresh evaluation of financial bids.

This followed AAR’s complaint that the evaluation was not above board. Madison says it already issued KU staff with insurance cards and received claims from various health facilities for services offered.

According to Madison, the PPARB decision is tainted with illegalities and should be set aside. “The respondent acted without jurisdiction and ultra vires and illegally in hearing and determining the request for review no 155/2021,” claims Madison.