SRC slams Court of Appeal ruling on Judges’ car allowance, vows Supreme Court battle

The Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) sharply criticized a judgment by the Court of Appeal of Kenya delivered on March 25, 2026, which upheld the legality of a taxable car allowance for judges, terming the decision an unconstitutional overreach that undermines its mandate and burdens taxpayers.

Citing the far-reaching constitutional and fiscal implications of the ruling, SRC has confirmed it will appeal to the Supreme Court.

The commission says the case raises critical issues, including the protection of its constitutional mandate, judicial ethics, fiscal sustainability, and the risk of a ripple effect across government.

SRC reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring prudent, equitable, and transparent management of State officers’ remuneration, framing the appeal as a necessary step to uphold constitutional order and protect public resources.

SRC argued that the allowance—first introduced in 2011 by the Head of Public Service—was irregular and unconstitutional from the outset. The commission maintains that under Article 230(4)(a) of the Constitution, it holds the exclusive authority to set and review remuneration and benefits for all State officers, including members of the judiciary.

According to SRC, this mandate was unlawfully bypassed when the allowance was implemented without its input.
The commission further cites advisory backing from the Office of the Attorney General, which supported SRC’s 2021 decision to revoke the benefit.

SRC also points to Article 210(3) of the Constitution, which prohibits preferential tax treatment for State officers, arguing that earlier exemptions on imported vehicles for judges were inconsistent with the 2010 constitutional framework.

Beyond constitutional concerns, SRC has warned of the financial implications of sustaining the allowance.
The commission says judges already receive official transport as part of their benefits package, making the car allowance an unjustified duplication.

Maintaining the allowance, SRC estimates, will cost taxpayers more than Sh2.5 billion every four years.
It has also cautioned that the ruling could trigger similar demands from other State officers, significantly escalating public expenditure.

SRC has also raised alarm over what it describes as a conflict of interest, arguing that judges ruled on a matter in which they had a direct financial stake.

The commission revealed that it had sought the recusal of judges during earlier High Court proceedings and proposed alternative dispute resolution, but the request was rejected.

While the court maintained its constitutional role to interpret the law, SRC insists the circumstances warranted a different approach to safeguard judicial impartiality.