County Secretary of Kajiado, Ole Sakude & 46 others v Salaries & Remuneration Commission & another (Civil Appeal 230 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1613 (KLR)
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
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned judge erred in holding that the petition did not disclose constitutional issues warranting the intervention of the court
- 2.Whether the respondent acted within the confines of its constitutional and statutory mandate in issuing the impugned circulars and advisory communications relating to the remuneration and grading of County Secretaries
- 3.Whether the respondent unlawfully redesignated, or otherwise altered the status of, the office of County Secretary from Job Group 'T', or its equivalent, to Job Group 'S', or its equivalent
- 4.Whether the respondent violated the appellants' rights under Articles 27, 41 and 47 of the Constitution
- 5.Whether the appeal has been overtaken by events and, if so, the effect, if any, of that finding on the reliefs sought
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
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- 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)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court and the declarations of constitutional violation sought in the petition
The appellants failed to establish any violation of Articles 27, 41 or 47 or any unlawful redesignation of the office of County Secretary
Injunctive relief restraining implementation of the impugned circulars and the final county job evaluation report
Overtaken by events; the impugned remuneration framework has been superseded by subsequent reviews, so an order would be granted in vain
Compensation of Kshs. 1,000,000/= to each appellant and general and aggravated damages
No constitutional violation was established on the evidence
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal
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.
we find no basis for interfering with the judgment of the trial court. Accordingly, this appeal is not merited and it is hereby dismissed. Given that the appeal concerned the interpretation of constitutional provisions governing the respective mandates of public institutions and raised issues of public importance relating to county governance and public remuneration, we consider it appropriate to direct that each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.
the use of an equivalent job group as a reference point for remuneration does not, without more, amount to the legal redesignation of a public office.
An administrative authority cannot shield its actions from constitutional scrutiny by adopting a description that obscures their true legal character.
Legitimate expectation cannot operate to prevent the lawful exercise of that constitutional mandate but it does entitle affected persons to a process that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
independence from direction or control under Article 249 of the Constitution does not place a constitutional commission beyond the reach of the Constitution itself.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the impugned judgment is dated 14th May 2020 and the memorandum of appeal 29th May 2020, yet counsel's submissions are described as dated 4th March 2026 and 21st March 2026, and the judgment is delivered 31st July 2026 - an implausible gap between appeal and submissions.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Secretary of Kajiado, Ole Sakude & 46 others v Salaries & Remuneration Commission & another (Civil Appeal 230 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1613 (KLR)", 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.