Kenya SRC: Appeals High Court Ruling on JSC Judicial Benefits

• The Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) is appealing a High Court ruling that limited its authority over judges' benefits.
• The High Court determined that SRC's mandate for judges is restricted to remuneration, while the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) oversees other conditions of service.
• The dispute arose after SRC unilaterally reduced judges' optical/dental medical cover from Sh200,000 to Sh75,000 and daily subsistence allowance (DSA) from Sh25,000 to Sh18,000.
• The court found SRC's actions encroached on JSC's constitutional mandate and violated Article 160(4) by interfering with judicial independence.
• SRC argues its constitutional mandate under Article 230(4) covers all State officers' remuneration and benefits, and that the ruling risks inconsistent compensation across the public sector.

The High Court's judgment, delivered by Court of Appeal Justice Chacha Mwita and High Court Justice Roselyne Aburili, asserted that the SRC's authority over judges and judicial officers is confined to remuneration, with the Judicial Service Commission retaining responsibility for other conditions of service, including various benefits.

The Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) has declared its intention to challenge a recent High Court ruling that curtailed its powers concerning the benefits of judges and other judicial officers. This decision, issued on October 23, 2026, in the case of *Marion Joy Onchagwa v Salaries and Remuneration Commission*, Petition No. HCCHRPET/E492/2023, found that the SRC's mandate over the judiciary is specifically limited to remuneration, leaving other conditions of service, including various benefits, under the purview of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The dispute originated from an SRC communication dated October 13, 2023, which unilaterally reduced several benefits for judges. Specifically, the optical and dental medical cover for judges was cut from Sh200,000 to Sh75,000 each, and the daily subsistence allowance (DSA) was lowered from Sh25,000 to Sh18,000. The SRC had contended that these adjustments were necessary to harmonize allowances across public institutions. However, the High Court determined that the Judiciary had negotiated its medical cover, which was funded through its parliamentary-approved budget, and therefore, the SRC lacked the authority to unilaterally reduce these benefits. The court also ruled that the DSA was not a component of remuneration, placing it outside the SRC's mandate.

The High Court's judgment, delivered by Court of Appeal Justice Chacha Mwita and High Court Justice Roselyne Aburili, asserted that the SRC's authority over judges and judicial officers is confined to remuneration, with the Judicial Service Commission retaining responsibility for other conditions of service, including various benefits. The SRC, in its appeal, cites Article 230(4) of the Constitution, which it interprets as granting it exclusive powers to set and regularly review the remuneration and benefits of all State officers, arguing that this mandate extends to all allowances and benefits.

Conversely, the Judicial Service Commission's role, as outlined in Article 172(1)(b)(i), includes reviewing and making recommendations on the conditions of service for judges and judicial officers. The High Court explicitly stated that the setting and reviewing of DSA did not fall under the SRC's mandate because DSA is not considered part of remuneration. Furthermore, the court found that the Special Judicial Duty Allowance was also outside the SRC's scope, as it is not universally paid to all judges and judicial staff and is determined by the JSC. The court concluded that the SRC had encroached upon the JSC's constitutional mandate and violated Article 160(4) of the Constitution by varying medical cover and DSA for judges, provisions designed to protect judges from disadvantageous changes, thereby interfering with the independence of the Judiciary. Consequently, the court quashed the relevant portions of the SRC's October 13, 2023 letter that pertained to benefits other than remuneration for judicial personnel.

The Salaries and Remuneration Commission is pursuing this appeal due to what it perceives as wider implications for the constitutional framework governing public-sector remuneration and benefits in Kenya. The SRC argues that excluding the Judiciary from standardized allowances risks creating disparate compensation structures across the public service, which could lead to claims of inequity, increased fiscal pressure on the national budget, and further litigation. It also warns that allowing different institutions to independently determine allowances could undermine consistency in the management of public-sector compensation.

This legal challenge is significant as it seeks to clarify the precise boundaries of the SRC's constitutional authority, particularly concerning non-remuneration benefits for State officers. The outcome will have a profound impact on the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to the independence of the Judiciary and the harmonization of public sector compensation, potentially setting a precedent for how benefits are managed across various constitutional bodies in Kenya. While the High Court dismissed complaints regarding transport allowance and car loans due to insufficient evidence, the core dispute over medical cover and daily subsistence allowance remains central to the ongoing legal battle.

Lawyers advising state corporations or constitutional bodies in Kenya should closely monitor the outcome of this Court of Appeal case, as it will clarify the precise scope of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission's (SRC) mandate over non-remuneration benefits for state officers, potentially setting a precedent for other sectors. The ruling will determine whether the SRC can unilaterally alter benefits previously negotiated or determined by other constitutional bodies, impacting compliance strategies related to public sector compensation.

Source: Original reporting via Capital News