Another blow to President Ruto as court nullifies housing directive for teachers, police

The judge declared that Ruto’s announcements could not lawfully alter or supplement the criteria established under the Affordable Housing Act and its Regulations. [PCS]

The High Court has declared President William Ruto’s plan to reserve affordable houses for teachers and police officers legally ineffective, ruling that it lacks a basis in law.

In a judgment delivered on Thursday, October 29, 2026, Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande ruled that the President cannot introduce preferential housing allocation criteria through executive pronouncements that are not supported by legislation or an established policy framework.

The judge declared that Ruto’s announcements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, could not lawfully alter or supplement the criteria established under the Affordable Housing Act and its Regulations.

“A declaration be and is hereby issued that the pronouncements made by the President on June 3, 2025 and September 13, 2025, absent a statutory or policy basis, are of no legal effect and cannot lawfully alter or supplement the criteria for allocation of housing units established under the Affordable Housing Act and its Regulations,” the judge ruled.

The decision followed a constitutional petition filed by John Maina Ndegwa and Marshalls Tito Ongoya, who challenged proposals to reserve 20 per cent of affordable housing units for teachers and another 20 per cent for members of the National Police Service.

The petitioners argued that the proposed quotas would unfairly favour selected professional groups in a programme funded through housing levies, taxpayer money and other public resources contributed by Kenyans.

They contended that the constitutional right to housing applies equally to all citizens and that preferential treatment for specific occupational groups must have a lawful justification.

The petitioners also argued that the proposed allocations violated constitutional principles of equality, transparency, public participation and accountability in the management of public resources.

They asked the court to declare the presidential directives unconstitutional, prohibit their implementation and compel the Affordable Housing Board to establish transparent, inclusive and non-discriminatory allocation criteria.

However, the respondents opposed the petition, maintaining that the President was exercising his constitutional authority under Article 132(3)(b) to direct and coordinate the functions of ministries and government departments.

They argued that the presidential pronouncements did not amend the Affordable Housing Act or override the statutory mandate of the Affordable Housing Board.

The respondents further maintained that the case was premature because the petitioners had not demonstrated that any actual housing allocation had denied eligible Kenyans access to the programme.

The judge declared that Ruto’s announcements could not lawfully alter or supplement the criteria established under the Affordable Housing Act and its Regulations. [PCS]

Justice Nyaundi rejected that argument, finding that the petition raised a legitimate constitutional question even though the proposed preferences had not been implemented.

The judge held that presidential powers must be exercised within the Constitution and cannot be used to introduce allocation criteria that Parliament has not provided for in law.

“The authority does not extend to varying statutory criteria enacted by Parliament,” the judge stated.

She further warned against allowing executive announcements to override legislation enacted under the Constitution.

“Executive authority may facilitate the implementation of the law, but it cannot alter the law or create rights and preferences outside it,” she ruled.

The judge added that the Affordable Housing Act and its Regulations already establish the legal framework governing the allocation of housing units, and any changes must follow procedures recognised by law.

“Once measured against Article 10, the impugned remarks cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny,” the judge stated.

The court’s decision means the President’s announcements cannot independently provide a lawful basis for reserving the proposed housing quotas for teachers and police officers.

The court ruling does not, however, invalidate the entire Affordable Housing Programme.

Justice Nyaundi made no order as to costs, noting that the petition had been brought in the public interest.