'I'm not going anywhere': CJ Koome rejects SRC's bid to recuse self from judges' Sh10m car allowance case

Chief Justice Martha Koome dismissed the allegations of bias, insisting that she had no conflict of interest in the dispute and was prepared to discharge her constitutional mandate. [File, Standard]

Chief Justice Martha Koome has rejected a bid by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) to have her and Justice Mohammed Warsame recuse themselves from a case challenging judges’ Sh10 million taxable car allowance.

The application was raised as the Supreme Court began on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, hearing SRC’s appeal against decisions by the High Court and Court of Appeal upholding the controversial benefit to all judges in the country after every four years.

SRC’s lawyer Peter Wanyama told the seven-judge bench that the commission was concerned about the impartiality of the two judges, CJ Koome and Warsame, citing their previous involvement in Judicial Service Commission (JSC) discussions touching on the dispute.

Wanyama also cited remarks Koome allegedly made in Mombasa on September 7, 2023, during a judicial colloquium, claiming she had described SRC as “the enemy of the judiciary”.

“My client has instructed me to raise these concerns. They are appreciably apprehensive that you will not be impartial in adjudicating a dispute concerning them,” Wanyama told the court.

He argued that the Supreme Court had an obligation to address what he described as an abuse of judicial power by the lower courts.

“I represent the Salaries and Remuneration Commission, which has been battered severely by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in circumstances which amount to massive abuse of judicial power,” he said.

Wanyama argued that the doctrine of necessity, which allows judges to hear a matter where recusal would affect the court’s quorum, did not apply because the Supreme Court could still sit with other judges.

“The Supreme Court is a quorum for five judges,” he said, asking Koome and Wasame to step aside.

But Koome dismissed the allegations of bias, insisting that she had no conflict of interest in the dispute and was prepared to discharge her constitutional mandate.

“We have no conflict of interest in this matter. As the Chief Justice, I have absolutely no conflict,” Koome said.

“I have taken an oath to administer the law, to protect and promote the Constitution. I have no bias whatsoever, and so is my colleague, Your Honourable Mr Justice Warsame.”

She added: “We have no bias whatsoever against the Salaries and Remuneration Commission. They are doing their work.”

Koome further observed that several Supreme Court judges had previously served in the JSC, including her Deputy Philomena Mwilu and even current Justice Njoki Ndungu, making the doctrine of necessity relevant to the proceedings.

SRC’s lawyer insisted that the commission’s concerns should be formally recorded, arguing that the application was not intended to derail the hearing.

The court directed Wanyama to proceed with his submissions, giving him 30 minutes to present SRC’s case after he complained that the initial 15 minutes allocated to him were insufficient.

The Supreme Court has also declined an application by four civil society organisations seeking to be enjoined in the dispute over judges’ Sh10 million taxable car allowance.

The organisations are Transparency International Kenya, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), Inuka Kenya Ni Sisi and the Institute for Social Accountability (TISA), which sought to participate in the proceedings as interested parties.

The application was raised before the hearing, with CJ Koome questioning why the groups had moved to join the case on the eve of the proceedings.

Their lawyer Soyinka Lempaa told the judges that the organisations had received instructions the previous evening, citing the immense public interest surrounding the dispute.

However, the judges declined to admit the organisations into the proceedings, allowing the Supreme Court to proceed with the hearing of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission’s appeal against the decision upholding the Sh10 million taxable car allowance for judges.

The Supreme Court nevertheless indicated that it was ready to proceed with the appeal filed by SRC.

The commission is challenging previous decisions that upheld the taxable car allowance, arguing that it was introduced without its approval, amounts to double compensation and could cost taxpayers billions of shillings.

The judges, on the other hand, have relied on constitutional protections safeguarding their remuneration and benefits from being varied to their disadvantage.

The hearing on the SRC appeal is currently ongoing before the Supreme Court