For years, foreign trained doctors have been a part of Kenya’s healthcare workforce. Under the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act and the Medical Practitioners and Dentists (Inspections and Licensing) Rules, foreign doctors could apply for full registration and licences to practise in Kenya and in more recent years, the Council also introduced temporary registration and licences valid for up to one year, subject to continuing professional development requirements and practising only at specified facilities while maintaining professional indemnity and good standing from their home jurisdictions. This regime was intended to support healthcare delivery while enabling oversight and compliance with local standards.
Historically, foreign practitioners could fill gaps where local capacity was limited especially in specialised fields and apply to renew licences annually, provided they met Continuing Pprofessional development and regulatory requirements. They were permitted to work in only one facility at a time, and health facilities were required to notify the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC) before engaging foreign doctors. Practising without a valid licence has long been a serious offence carrying fines, imprisonment, or both, and institutions employing unlicensed practitioners face steep penalties.
In January 2026, Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale announced a new “Kenya First” policy under which licences for most foreign general practitioners, medical officers, dentists and other general cadres will not be renewed unless the applicant is a specialist with skills not readily available locally. The shift aims to protect opportunities for Kenyan‑trained doctors many of whom remain unemployed despite public investment in their training while allowing foreign specialists in areas of demonstrable shortage, especially where local expertise is limited. Doctors from East African Community (EAC) partner states remain eligible under this policy, but even then, priority is given only to specialists with unique skills.
This raises several critical legal questions.
First, is there a court challenge or precedent? In Kenya’s recent legal history there has been litigation concerning foreign doctors, but rather than restricting them, courts have upheld the licensing of qualified foreign specialists where there is a shortage locally. For example, in 2020, the High Court in Stanley Khainga & 2 others (Suing as Officials of the Kenya Society of Plastic Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery) v Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board & 5 others [2020] KEHC 10322 (KLR), dismissed a petition by Kenyan surgeons seeking to stop foreign plastic surgeons from practising, noting that licensing qualified foreign practitioners was in the public interest given the low number of specialists in the country. But there is a current ongoing case in court filed by Congelese doctors that have worked in Kenya for years
Second, regarding law vs policy and parliamentary oversight: the current directive is a policy announcement by the executive, not a legislative amendment to the Act or its rules. Under constitutional principles, changes that impact fundamental rights typically require proper legal or regulatory procedures including public participation and parliamentary oversight especially where they touch on employment and freedom from discrimination. A policy with the force of law without proper legislative or regulatory backing could face legal challenge if applied in a way that conflicts with statute or constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness.
Third, questions arise around discrimination and regional obligations. Prioritising Kenyan citizens might appear to disadvantage non‑citizens, but countries generally have latitude under international law to prioritise citizens in their labour markets, especially where there are unemployment concerns and national interest considerations. However, international labour standards such as those promoted by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and recognized in Kenya’s policy statement discourage unfair discrimination in employment practices.
On the East African Community (EAC) front, the Common Market Protocol obliges partner states to promote free movement of workers and labour mobility within the region and to progressively recognise professional qualifications across member states. Article 11 of the protocol provides for mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications to facilitate labour mobility. It also prohibits discrimination against workers from partner states in access to employment opportunities although actual implementation has been gradual and often requires domestic legislation and regulatory alignment.
In practical terms, Kenya’s current approach does attempt to balance national priorities and regional commitments by exempting EAC nationals from the most restrictive aspects of the new policy, while still conditioning licences on specialist needs. Whether this fully aligns with EAC obligations will depend on how it is implemented and whether regulatory frameworks, mutual recognition agreements and qualification harmonisation measures envisioned under the protocol are fully operationalised.
Ultimately, the recent policy is complex not just as a regulatory matter but also in constitutional, regional and international law terms. It underscores the need for carefully crafted legislation, clear regulatory instruments and transparent criteria that respect both national interests and labour mobility commitments. For foreign doctors and employers alike, proactive compliance, legal clarity and, where necessary, judicial review will be essential to navigate this evolving landscape.
At MMS Advocates, we help hospitals and foreign doctors navigate the evolving regulatory landscape by conducting thorough licence and continuing professional development audits, preparing and submitting renewal applications, verifying specialist recognition, and liaising with the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council to ensure timely compliance. Where licences are delayed or denied, we provide legal advisory and representation, including drafting appeals or pursuing judicial review, while also assisting health facilities in establishing internal compliance systems to track renewals and mitigate risks associated with employing unlicensed practitioners, ensuring operations remain fully compliant with statutory and regulatory requirements.