County Assembly of Embu v Salaries and Remuneration Commission (Petition E016 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2393 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld the SRC's power to grade MCA pay and scrap certain allowances, dismissing the Embu County Assembly's challenge for lack of evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the petition meets the competence threshold
- 2.Whether the respondent violated the Constitutional rights of the state and public officers working for the petitioner
- 3.Whether reliefs sought are merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition met the reasonable precision (competence) threshold
The petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold as it set out the grievances, the constitutional provisions allegedly violated and the manner of violation.
The court applied the Anarita Karimi Njeru test, which requires a petitioner to set out with reasonable precision the complaint, the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement. On perusal of the petition, the petitioner identified Articles 27 and 47 and pleaded with clarity, in paragraph 45 of the petition, how those provisions were allegedly violated. The competence threshold was therefore satisfied.
Whether the SRC circulars demoted MCAs from Job Grade D5 to D4 unconstitutionally
No demotion was proved; the MCA role has consistently been graded D4 in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd review cycles.
The alleged demotion rested on circular SRC/ADM/CIR/1/13 VOL.III (127), a corrigendum whose Appendix placed the MCA at Grade D4 (Job Group P) for DSA harmonization purposes only. The petitioner did not produce job evaluation gradings for the first and second review cycles to rebut the respondent's case, and its own consultancy document dated February 2023 showed the MCA at Grade D4. CAF had welcomed the grading in its correspondences.
Whether the scrapping of Retreat, sitting (internal committees) and Task force allowances was unconstitutional
The scrapping had a stated and valid basis: the allowances amounted to double compensation.
The respondent explained, and the circulars themselves communicated, that tasks undertaken in retreats, internal committees and internal task forces were in furtherance of the officers' core business, so that paying the allowances in addition to gross pay amounted to double compensation. The petitioner merely alleged the scrapping was without basis but adduced no evidence to displace that justification.
Whether refusal to approve Non-practicing Allowance for professionals in the County Assembly was discriminatory
The allegation failed for want of particulars and evidence.
Although the petitioner alleged in paragraph 44 of the petition that the respondent unjustifiably refused to approve Non-practicing Allowance for professionals in the County Assembly public service, it pleaded no particulars and tendered no evidence to substantiate the claim. The respondent denied the allegation, stating it applies Article 230(5) principles and section 12 of the SRC Act. The claim therefore was not proved.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner bears the burden of proving allegations of constitutional violation on a balance of probabilities.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the petition with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction under the Constitution (petitioner established under Articles 176 and 177 as read with Section 7 of the County Government Act; respondent an Independent Constitutional Commission under Article 230)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the review and revision of job grades by SRC is an administrative action under Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Actions Act
Petitioner failed to prove its case on a balance of probability
Declaration that circulars SRC/TS/29 (96), SRC/ADM/11 (156) and SRC/ADM/11 (157) are unconstitutional
No evidence of demotion of MCAs from Job Grade D5 to D4; the role of MCA has consistently been graded D4
Order of certiorari to quash the three circulars
There was basis for scrapping the allowances, namely double compensation
Declaration that refusal to approve Non-practicing Allowance is unconstitutional and discriminatory
No particulars pleaded and no evidence adduced
Costs
The petition is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I find that the petitioner has not placed before this court any evidence to prove that MCAs were demoted from Job Grade D5 to D4 by the respondent vide circular Ref No.SRC/TS/29 (96) dated 7th November 2023.
I find that the petition meets the competence threshold established by the Court in Anarita Karimi Njeru case, supra.
I find that there was basis for scrapping the same and the circulars communicated the same, namely, that the allowances amounted to double compensation to the concerned oficers.
In view of the foregoing conclusion, I find that the petitioner has failed to prove its case on a balance of probability and as such it is not entitled to the reliefs sought. Consequently, I dismiss the petition with costs
Issues in the judgment
#The petition number is not stated anywhere in the judgment; the case is identified only by its date (17th November 2023).
The judgment's introduction states the petition was dated 17th November 2023 but is supported by an affidavit sworn on 20th March 2023, an earlier date than the petition.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Assembly of Embu v Salaries and Remuneration Commission (Petition E016 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2393 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 17th November 2023 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2393/eng@2025-08-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.