Teachers working in arid and remote areas have moved to court to stop the government from implementing a plan that would remove hardship allowances from over 129 sub-counties, and which could see civil servants lose up to Sh6 billion in the allowances.
The Kenya Teachers in Hardship and Arid Areas Welfare Association (Kethawa) has raised concerns over the proposed implementation of the 2019 Inter-Agency Technical Committee Report on Hardship Area Reclassification, citing a lack of public consultation, scientific validation, and engagement with key stakeholders during its development.
“The reports affect 44 regions spreading across over 35 counties and over 129 sub-counties in the republic of Kenya which continue to suffer from inaccessibility, poor healthcare, insecurity, and under-resourced schools amongst other challenges. Teachers who are posted in this areas have long been recipients of hardship allowances as compensation for adverse working conditions,” read the petition.
Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi last week told the National Assembly that the review of the hardship areas will see the government reduce the payment of the allowances from the current Sh25, 984,087,848 to Sh19, 532,995,548.
In a court order dated May 9, 2025, Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa directed that the petition be served upon all respondents, including the Teachers Service Commission (TSC), Public Service Commission, Salaries and Remuneration Commission, Prime Cabinet Secretary, and Attorney General.
The matter is scheduled for inter partes hearing on May 20, 2025.
Through its petition, the association proposes dividing hardship areas into two tiers “extreme” and “moderate” and eliminating some regions from the hardship designation entirely.
Kethawa argues that this approach risks cutting vital allowances for teachers and other public workers, potentially causing major interruptions in essential public services.
“The report proposes a controversial reclassification that places certain counties or sub-counties into “Extreme” and “Moderate” hardship categories while excluding others altogether. The report was allegedly developed by a 2019 Inter-Agency Technical Committee allegedly composed of various government bodies. However, there is no evidence of public consultation, scientific validation, or stakeholder engagement in the development of this report before its proposed implementation,” read the petition.
“The proposed implementation of the report, currently under consideration for gazettement, will significantly reduce or eliminate hardship allowances for our teachers in affected areas. The process leading to the report and its proposed implementation violates constitutional principles, statutory requirements, and the rights of public servants and affected communities,” it adds.
The petitioners further claim that if implemented, the report will demotivate public servants, destabilize communities, and deepen marginalization in already underserved regions. The association is seeking orders to suspend the report’s implementation, compel the government to disclose its criteria, and conduct inclusive public hearings before any changes are effected.
“The selective categorization of hardship zones without an objective and rational framework constitutes unequal treatment. The implementation of the report will cause some disadvantaged regions to be removed from hardship status while others remain, without clear criteria, violating the equality clause,” it read.
Kethawa further argues that the proposal undermines the right to fair labour practices and remuneration, particularly for educators and civil servants who serve in remote and underserved areas.
“Removing hardship areas, especially in areas still lacking infrastructure, health, education, and security, infringes the residents' and workers' rights to accessible and adequate services. The resulting migration of public servants away from these areas due to lack of hardship support will further deepen inequality and marginalization,” they said.
The association says the potential withdrawal of hardship allowances breaches workers’ legitimate expectations, especially those who committed to challenging postings based on the existing benefits.
“The abrupt actions without notice from the Respondents violates the Right to Fair Administrative Action (Article 47). The lack of transparency, documentation, justification, and opportunity to be heard offends the right to fair administrative action,” read the petition.
The association further invokes international obligations, arguing that the proposed changes contravene several treaties Kenya has ratified.
“The Respondents actions are a violation under the ILO Convention No. 131 on Minimum Wage Fixing. Kenya is bound by international labor standards that demand transparency and worker consultation in wage-related adjustments. This unilateral decision is inconsistent with ILO principles of decent work and social justice,” read the petition.
Among the reliefs sought, the petitioners are asking for a declaration that the tabling and planned implementation of the report be halted until full stakeholder engagement is conducted.
Historically, hardship allowances for teachers have varied significantly. In 2019, the lowest-paid teachers received approximately Sh3,055 per month, while the highest-paid earned up to Sh13,479. Subsequent adjustments saw these figures rise, with some teachers receiving between Sh10,900 and Sh38,100.
However, Kethawa maintains that these amounts remain insufficient given the harsh conditions in which their members operate.
“Take not that failure to incorporate our input in the 2025 to 2029 CBA will be met with all manner of lawful resistance from teachers working in hardship and arid areas as we shall not sit back as discrimination backdating many years back is perpetuated against our members. Your quick and prompt action is hereby called for,” Mr Wangonya Wangenye, Kethawa, National Secretary told the Nation .
Currently, the Civil Service, county governments and State Corporations have 16 areas designated as hardship, the teaching service has 44 while the Judiciary has 21.
