SHA ordered to facilitate redeployment of former NHIF Director

The Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) has ordered the Social Health Authority (SHA) to facilitate redeployment a former National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) Director of financial services to the public service.

This, the ELRC ruled will be effective from the date of termination of employment of Mr Robert Ingasira without loss of benefits until end of his contract or as per determined by the Public Service Commission (PSC) whichever is greater.

“It is apparent that there was an option for the petitioner (Mr Ingasira) to be redeployed in the wider public service and which he requested from the PSC and the request was declined or ignored and led the respondent (SHA) terminating the contract between the petitioner and themselves unfairly,” the ELRC ruled.

The ELRC in Nairobi further issued a declaration that the respondent (SHA) terminated the petitioner’s (Mr Ingasira) employment unfairly.

It also ordered the respondent to pay Mr Ingasira Sh3 million as damages for breach of his constitutional right.

The ELRC noted that from the evidence on record the petitioner was initially recruited by the precursor to SHA, National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) and retained on a five-year fixed contract as Director, Financial Services on October 11, 2023.

It also noted that on October 11, 2023, the SHA Act was assented to and subsequently came into force on November 22, 2023, thus establishing the SHA.

The court noted that on November 12, 2024, the petitioner was appointed as SHA acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO) until June 2 last year.

The ELRC ruled that SHA, despite relying on an advisory from the PSC had an obligation to ensure adherence to the law, in which they failed and terminated the petitioner’s employment without consideration of his request to deployment in the wider public service.

It further ruled that the petitioner’s right under Article 41 of the constitution was flouted and that it was not clear why the advisory from the PSC excluded directors in deployment.

“The action of excluding directors from deployment was therefore discriminatory and in breach of Article 27 of the constitution,” ruled the ELRC.

Article 27 (1) states that every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.

“It is therefore apparent that the right of the petitioner under the constitution were infringed upon,” ruled the ELRC.

Mr Ingasira told the court that he was lawfully employed by SHA as Director, Funds and Finance Management on April 10, 2025, and served until November 27 when his employment was unlawfully and unfairly terminated.

He averred that during his tenure, he rendered exemplary service, diligently executed his duties, and consistently met or exceeded performance targets set for his role, thereby contributing to SHA’s operations and growth.

It was his case that that his appointment arose within the transition from the NHIF to SHA under the Social Health Insurance Act whose transitional provisions required that staff be considered for absorption, redeployment or appointment in a lawful, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner.

Mr Ingasira told the court that transitional provisions contemplated that staff not absorbed would be redeployed within the public service, yet no reasons, information or explanation were given to him for his non-shortlisting and non-absorption.

He also said that SHA retained him in active service, assigned him duties and treated him as a serving employee throughout the period of his employment therefore its conduct demonstrated procedural arbitrariness and bad faith.

The petitioner further submitted that as a result of the respondent’s unlawful actions, he has suffered mental anguish, stress, anxiety, and instability, warranting the court’s intervention and protection.

However, on its part, SHA told the court that the petitioner remained, for all intents and purposes, an employee of the wider public service under the auspices of the PSC merely deployed to it (SHA) during the transition period.

SHA told the court that at no point did an employer-employee relationship crystallize directly between itself and Mr Ingasira under the new statutory dispensation.

The respondent told the court that pursuant to the statutory requirement for competitive recruitment, it advertised positions on July 29 last year and that petitioner participated in the process not as its internal employee but an external applicant eligible under the transitional provisions.

SHA told the court that the petitioner was not shortlisted for the position applied for, and that the reasons for his non-shortlisting were communicated to him.

It further contended that the petitioner had not challenged the integrity of the recruitment process nor the reasons for his failure to be shortlisted.

SHA told the court that following the conclusion of the recruitment process, a substantive appointment was made to the position of Director, Funds and Finance Management, and the appointed officer reported and took up office.

SHA said that the petitioner was aware of his status as a deployed officer assisting in the transition and in that capacity, he provided administrative support to the newly recruited Director, including accompanying him to the National Assembly Public Investment Committee sitting.