NAIROBI, Kenya Mar 26 – The Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) has announced plans to challenge a Court of Appeal judgment that upheld the taxable car allowance for Judges, describing the decision as an unconstitutional overreach that undermines its mandate and places an additional burden on Kenyan taxpayers.The ruling has sparked a fresh constitutional and fiscal debate over the remuneration and benefits of State officers in Kenya.SRC maintains that the introduction and continuation of the taxable car allowance for Judges is unconstitutional, arguing that it was established in 2011 by the Head of Public Service without its involvement.The Commission argues that under Article 230(4)(a) of the Constitution, it holds the exclusive mandate to set and regularly review remuneration and benefits for all State officers, including Judges.SRC further contends that this mandate was unlawfully bypassed when the allowance was introduced, a position it says has previously been supported by an opinion from the Attorney General during earlier reviews of the matter.At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of Article 210(3) of the Constitution, which provides that State officers cannot be exempted from tax obligations by virtue of their office.SRC argues that any tax exemption or special treatment regarding vehicle allowances is inconsistent with the Constitution, particularly under the provisions guiding public finance and remuneration of State officers.The Commission maintains that the Court of Appeal ruling undermines the constitutional framework governing public sector pay and benefits.SRC has also raised concerns over the financial implications of maintaining the allowance, stating that it amounts to double compensation, as Judges already receive official transport as part of their terms of service.According to SRC, the continuation of the allowance could cost taxpayers more than Sh2.5 billion every four years, increasing pressure on the national wage bill at a time when fiscal discipline is a key government priority.The Commission also warned that the ruling could trigger similar claims from other State officers, potentially escalating public expenditure significantly.SRC expressed concern over what it termed a conflict of interest in cases where Judges determine matters involving their own remuneration.It argued that such situations raise ethical questions about impartiality and judicial independence, noting that it had previously sought recusal of the presiding judges and proposed alternative dispute resolution mechanisms during earlier proceedings.However, the courts declined the application, affirming their constitutional duty to interpret the law.Following the Court of Appeal decision, SRC confirmed that it will immediately escalate the matter to the Supreme Court of Kenya for final determination.