The High Court has ruled that President William Ruto cannot reserve affordable housing units for teachers and police officers through presidential announcements without a legal framework authorising the preferential allocation.
In a judgment delivered on October 29, Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande found that the President’s pronouncements on June 3 and September 13, 2025, could not change the allocation criteria set out in the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.
The case centred on a government proposal to set aside 20 per cent of affordable housing units for teachers and another 20 per cent for members of the National Police Service.
Justice Mande said the President’s constitutional authority to coordinate government operations did not give him the power to introduce new allocation rules outside the law.
“Executive authority may facilitate the implementation of the law, but it cannot alter the law or create rights and preferences outside it,” the judge ruled.
She added that allowing executive announcements to change statutory provisions would undermine the rule of law and the authority of legislation enacted under the Constitution.
High Court Explains Why Ruto’s Housing Directives Were Challenged
The petition was filed by John Maina Ndegwa, Marshall Tito Ongoya and two other petitioners, who challenged the legality of giving teachers and police officers preferential access to units under the Affordable Housing Programme.
Also Read: High Court Gives Thousands of Kenyans Fresh Hope in Historical Land Injustice Claims
According to court documents, the petitioners argued that the programme is funded through public contributions and resources drawn from Kenyans across different professions. They said granting priority to selected occupational groups would unfairly advantage some applicants over others without a clear legal basis.
They also raised concerns about compliance with constitutional principles on equality, non-discrimination, access to housing, and the prudent use of public resources.
The orders sought included declarations that the proposed directives were unconstitutional and an injunction stopping their implementation. The petitioners further asked the court to compel the Affordable Housing Board to develop transparent, inclusive and non-discriminatory criteria for allocating housing units.
At the heart of the case was whether the President could introduce quotas for specific professions without first amending the existing legal framework or following the procedures required by law.
Why Ruto Wanted Teachers to Get Priority
Ruto had proposed giving teachers priority in the allocation of affordable housing, citing their contributions to the Affordable Housing Levy.
During a meeting with education stakeholders at State House on September 13, 2025, the President said teachers contributed about KSh900 million monthly to the levy and proposed reserving 20 per cent of the housing units for them.
He also proposed formalising the arrangement through an agreement involving the relevant government ministry and teachers’ representatives.
The proposal also included police officers, seeking to reserve a further 20 per cent of units for members of the National Police Service.
The proposal raised questions about how the government intended to balance the interests of particular professional groups with the need to allocate public housing fairly to eligible Kenyans.
Also Read: High Court Rules Next Elections Should Have Been Held in 2026, Not 2027
What the Government Told the Court
The respondents opposed the petition, saying President William Ruto was acting within his constitutional powers. They argued that the Constitution allows him to direct and coordinate the work of government ministries and departments.
According to the respondents, the President’s statements did not amend the Affordable Housing Act, override the mandate of the Affordable Housing Board or amount to binding decisions on the allocation of individual housing units.
The government also argued that the petition was filed prematurely because the petitioners had not shown that anyone had been denied a housing unit as a result of the proposed quotas.
However, Justice Mande rejected the argument that the case was premature and found that the petition raised a legitimate constitutional question even though the proposed preferential arrangements had not yet been implemented.
The judge held that individuals can seek judicial intervention when there is a credible threat that their rights or the Constitution will be violated.
Court Says Presidential Powers Cannot Change Housing Law
In examining the merits of the case, Justice Mande found that the President’s authority to direct government functions did not extend to changing allocation requirements established by legislation.
The Affordable Housing Act and its regulations already provide the framework for determining eligibility and allocating units. The judge said the government could not vary those requirements through public pronouncements alone.
She also found that introducing preferential treatment through executive declarations raised constitutional concerns about equality, transparency, and accountable governance.
“Once measured against Article 10, the impugned remarks cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny,” she ruled.
Article 10 of the Constitution sets out national values and principles of governance, including the rule of law, human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non-discrimination and protection of marginalised groups.
The judge stressed that the President, like other state officers, must act within the limits of the Constitution and the law.
The court declared that the pronouncements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, had no legal effect in the absence of a supporting statutory or policy framework.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates, and subscribe to our YouTube Channel for in-depth interviews.
