The High Court has agreed to hear on a fast track a constitutional challenge to the Salaries and Remuneration Commission's new pay rules. The case puts the National Assembly in the dock alongside the commission, over claims that MPs interfered with how an independent body makes its own regulations.

The petition was filed by Eliud Karanja Matindi, a UK-based Kenyan litigant whom the Daily Nation describes as a rights activist. He wants the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (Remuneration and Benefits of State and Other Public Officers) Regulations, 2026 declared invalid. The respondents are the National Assembly, the SRC and the Attorney-General. Katiba Institute and Transparency International Kenya are listed as interested parties.

No interim orders yet

According to Capital FM, the court declined to certify the application as extremely urgent and refused to suspend the regulations before hearing the other side. Instead, it merged the interim application with the main petition so the dispute can be heard in one go.

The judge directed Matindi to serve the National Assembly, the SRC, the Attorney-General and the interested parties by Tuesday, October 27. The respondents then have 14 days to file their replies, and the petitioner a further seven days to respond. The matter will be mentioned on November 25, 2026 to confirm the filings and set a hearing date.

Why Parliament is in the case

At the centre of the petition is the requirement that the SRC obtain the National Assembly's approval before gazetting its regulations. Matindi argues this undermines the independence that Article 249 of the Constitution guarantees to commissions. He also relies on Article 230, which gives the SRC the job of setting and reviewing the pay and benefits of State officers, to argue that Parliament cannot control the commission's rules before they are adopted and published.

The Daily Nation reports that he leans on a 2022 High Court decision which held that Parliament may not consider draft regulations before the authority that makes them has enacted and published them. Under the Statutory Instruments Act, the House scrutinises regulations after publication through its Committee on Delegated Legislation.

He makes a second, narrower argument: that the SRC did not submit the published rules to the Clerk of the National Assembly within the time the law allows, which he says is within seven sitting days of publication. On that ground alone, he says, the regulations should fall.

What the rules do

The regulations took effect on June 19, 2026. As reported by Capital FM, they set a mandatory four-year cycle for reviewing public officers' pay and benefits, tied to national budgeting and planning. Public institutions must carry out structured job evaluations to set the relative value of different roles, and the rules promote equal pay for work of equal value.

Public bodies with recognised unions must seek the SRC's advice before entering collective bargaining talks, and must submit financial performance reports, budget figures and staffing data when they ask for pay reviews. Pay increases and rewards are also linked to productivity and performance targets. In setting salaries, the commission must weigh the cost of living, what the government can afford and the value of different jobs.

The case lands at a sensitive moment. Lecturers are in the fourth week of a strike over pay, and doctors and the government have just opened talks on a new collective bargaining agreement. Both are areas where the SRC's advice shapes what the government can offer.

Neither the SRC nor the National Assembly had responded publicly to the petition by Tuesday. Their formal replies are due within the 14-day window set by the court.

Photos: Jorge Láscar/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0 (Parliament Buildings, Nairobi); Daily Nation (a parliamentary committee session)