County Secretary of Kajiado, Francis Ole Sakude & 46 Others & 46 Others v Salaries & Remuneration Commission
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed 47 County Secretaries' challenge to the SRC's power to set their pay grades, finding no proof of rights violations.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition disclosed constitutional issues
The learned judge erred in holding that the petition disclosed no constitutional issues, but the error did not affect the outcome because the violations were not proved. A petition may raise constitutional questions yet fail because the alleged violations are not proved.
The court held that the judge conflated the question whether a petition raises constitutional questions with the question whether the violations are proved. The appellants identified the provisions violated, the impugned decisions, the manner in which the SRC exceeded its mandate, and the remedies sought, satisfying the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold of reasonable precision. The possibility of failing on the merits does not mean a petition discloses no constitutional issues.
Whether the SRC acted within its constitutional and statutory mandate
The SRC's remuneration advice is binding, and the Transition Authority's earlier recommendations remained subject to the SRC's constitutional mandate under Article 230.
The SRC is an independent constitutional commission under Article 230, while the Transition Authority was a statutory body with a temporary mandate under section 37 of the Transition to Devolved Government Act. Subordinating a constitutional commission to a transitional statutory body would contradict the constitutional hierarchy. The Court endorsed the binding nature of SRC advice as held in Teachers Service Commission v KNUT and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Whether the office of County Secretary was unlawfully redesignated from Job Group 'T' to Job Group 'S'
No unlawful redesignation was established; the references to an equivalent job group were for remuneration and allowance purposes and did not alter the legal classification of the office.
The court distinguished creation and classification of a public office, job evaluation or grading, and determination of remuneration. No Gazette Notice, formal classification instrument or other legally operative document redesignating the office was placed before the courts. Substantive constitutional scrutiny is permissible, but on the evidence the impugned communications did not alter the legal status of the office.
Whether Articles 27, 41 and 47 were violated
No violation of fair administrative action, fair labour practices or equality was established on the evidence.
The record disclosed extensive stakeholder engagement and continued consideration of representations, inconsistent with arbitrary action. Procedural fairness is contextual; remuneration decisions of general application do not require individual oral hearings. On discrimination, no comparator similarly situated in all material respects and treated more favourably was identified, and differentiation founded on objective and rational considerations is permissible.
Mootness of the injunctive relief
The injunctive relief was overtaken by events, but declaratory and compensatory claims were not extinguished by mootness and remained justiciable.
Applying the doctrine of mootness as articulated by the Supreme Court, the court held that subsequent events overtaking some reliefs do not render the entire dispute moot. Declarations of illegality and claims for constitutional compensation serve purposes distinct from injunctive relief and survive the expiry of the impugned framework, so the appeal remained live notwithstanding the concession on the injunction.
Legal principles established
#- The advice of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission under Article 230(4)(b) on the remuneration and benefits of public officers is binding on national and county governments
- Recommendations made by the Transition Authority concerning job structures or remuneration during the transition period were advisory only and could neither override nor limit the SRC's constitutional mandate
- Benchmarking a public office to an equivalent job group for remuneration or allowance purposes does not, without more, amount to legal redesignation of the office; a petition may raise constitutional questions yet fail on proof of violation
- Administrative decisions of general application, such as reviews of remuneration structures affecting an entire class of public officers, do not invariably require an individual oral hearing under Article 47; what is required is a fair, transparent and responsive process with a meaningful opportunity to make representations
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal as a first appeal (Article 164 of the Constitution; the Court exercised its duty to re-evaluate the evidence as a first appellate court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Secretary of Kajiado, Francis Ole Sakude & 46 Others & 46 Others v Salaries & Remuneration Commission", Case Analysis (2026). Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Appeal (judgment delivered 31st July 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1613/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.