High Court puts Kenya’s wage bill on a court-supervised diet — and voids recent public service pay rises

Kenya’s long-running wage-bill debate has moved from policy paper to courtroom enforcement.

In a recent High Court decision, Justice Lawrence Mugambi declared unconstitutional the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC)-approved pay rises for public servants for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 financial years, faulting the process on constitutional standards—including public participation and fiscal discipline. 

More consequentially, the ruling shifts the wage-bill ceiling from an aspirational benchmark into a court-monitored compliance target: the SRC was directed to file annual affidavits every 30 June from 2026 through 2030, setting out the measures being implemented—working with other institutions—to bring and keep the public wage bill within the legally required ceiling. 

The core issue: a wage bill that keeps outpacing revenue

Public payroll pressure is not a new story; it is measurable and persistent.

SRC’s own wage-bill reporting has previously indicated that the wage bill-to-ordinary revenue ratio remained elevated—estimated at about 46% in FY 2023/24 (and similarly high in FY 2022/23), well above the commonly referenced 35% ceiling in Kenya’s public finance framework. 

It is this structural gap—between what government raises and what it must spend on compensation—that has made the wage bill a recurring constraint on development spending and fiscal flexibility.

Why the ruling is shaking the civil service

Coverage of the judgment has framed it as a potential turning point for the public service, because enforcing a hard ceiling inevitably forces government to choose among a limited set of options: restraining hiring, rationalising institutions, reducing allowances and non-wage benefits, freezing increments, or redesigning career structures and headcount over time. 

While some commentary has leapt to “mass layoffs,” the legally safer reading is narrower: the decision compels a measurable reduction path, and it requires proof of progress through sworn filings, tightening accountability in a way Kenya’s wage-bill debates often lack. 

What is verifiable (and what is not)

Verifiable from credible reporting and primary institutions:

• The High Court voided SRC-approved pay rises for the specified financial years on constitutional/process grounds. 

• The court directed annual affidavits (30 June, 2026–2030) on measures to achieve and sustain the wage ceiling. 

• SRC’s wage-bill data has placed the wage bill-to-ordinary revenue ratio at ~46% in FY 2023/24 (est.). 

Not verifiable as fact from the material above (should be treated as projections):

• Claims that the ruling will lead to a specific number of job losses, or guarantees “the biggest retrenchment in history.” Those outcomes depend on policy choices, negotiations, and implementation details that are not contained in the court’s directive itself.

The wider context: government has been chasing 35% for years

Separately from the court process, SRC and other institutions have already been publicly driving a national push toward a 35% wage-bill-to-revenue target, including through multi-agency resolutions and implementation strategies aimed at reaching the threshold by June 2028. 

The difference now is enforcement: the High Court decision adds judicial supervision and a formal compliance timetable that must be accounted for on record. 

What to watch next (the real tests)

1. The first affidavit deadline (30 June 2026) — and whether it sets out concrete, auditable steps (not broad intentions). 

2. How government treats allowances and non-wage benefits, often a large and politically sensitive component of compensation restraint. 

3. County compliance, where wage ceilings are frequently breached and payroll controls remain uneven, according to oversight reporting. 

If the ruling triggers disciplined execution, it could re-balance public spending toward development and services. If it collapses into appeals, workarounds, or non-compliance, it will deepen the credibility crisis around wage-bill management—this time under the glare of sworn filings and courtroom scrutiny.