Premium
SRC protests Court of Appeal judgment upholding Sh10m car grants for judges
SRC has termed the decision on judges' car grants as an unconstitutional overreach.
The Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) has issued a sternly worded statement in reaction to losing its bid to block judges from receiving Sh10 million car grant each.
SRC termed the decision as an unconstitutional overreach, while also expressing fears that it could trigger a ripple effect among other State officers seeking the same benefit on grounds of equity and fairness.
"The ruling is an unconstitutional overreach that undermines SRC’s mandate and places an undue burden on the Kenyan taxpayer.Under Article 230(4)(a) of the Constitution, the exclusive mandate to set and regularly review the remuneration and benefits of all State officers — including judges — is vested solely in SRC," the agency said in a statement Thursday.
"Sustaining the Taxable Car Allowance for judges constitutes double compensation: Judges already receive official transportation as part of their terms of service. Maintaining this additional benefit is, therefore, neither justified nor fiscally prudent. Continued disbursement of the allowance will result in an additional drain of more than Sh2.5 billion from the public purse every four-year period — an unnecessary burden on taxpayers at a time when fiscal discipline is paramount."
SRC also alleged that the decision smacked of conflict of interest from the courts.
"SRC is deeply troubled by the inherent conflict of interest arising from judges adjudicating a matter in which they hold a direct pecuniary interest. This ethical breach strikes at the very foundation of judicial impartiality."
In its decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that the benefit is constitutionally protected and cannot be withdrawn, exposing the exchequer to a sustained and recurring financial obligation tied to judicial service. The five-judge bench upheld earlier High Court findings that the up to Sh10 million car allowance remains a protected benefit attached to the office of a judge and cannot be removed to their disadvantage.
At the heart of the dispute was a 2021 letter by SRC directing the withdrawal of the benefit, arguing that only the commission has the constitutional mandate to set and review remuneration and benefits of state officers.
SRC maintained that the allowance had been irregularly introduced through executive circulars issued by the Head of Public Service starting on July 7, 2011, and later reviewed on June 2, 2015 and June 4, 2018.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
Additional report by Joseph Wangui
