Why Court blocked Ruto’s plan to reserve 40% of affordable houses for teachers, Police

The High Court has ruled that President William Ruto’s pronouncements proposing to reserve 40 per cent of affordable housing units for teachers and police officers have no legal effect in the absence of a statutory or policy basis.

In a judgment delivered on Thursday, October 29, 2026, Lady Justice Nyaundi Patricia Mande declared that the President’s announcements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, cannot lawfully alter or introduce new criteria for allocating houses under the Affordable Housing Act and its Regulations.

The proposed arrangement sought to reserve 20 per cent of the units for teachers and another 20 per cent for members of the National Police Service.

The court held that although the President has constitutional authority to direct and coordinate the functions of the national executive, those powers do not extend to changing allocation criteria established through legislation enacted by Parliament.

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

The judge added that allowing executive pronouncements to override the existing statutory framework would undermine the rule of law.

“Article 132(3)(b) cannot therefore be construed as authorising the President to override legislation enacted by Parliament,” she ruled.

The petition was filed by John Maina Ndegwa and Marshalls Tito Ongoya, who challenged the proposed preferential allocation, arguing that the constitutional right to housing under Article 43 applies equally to Kenyans and that professional groups cannot be given priority without lawful justification.

They argued that the proposed quotas would discriminate against other contributors to the Housing Levy and members of the public seeking access to the programme.

The petitioners also questioned whether the President could introduce the preferences without following the statutory allocation procedures and the Affordable Housing Board’s mandate.

The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the President’s remarks were policy pronouncements and did not amend the Affordable Housing Act or amount to binding administrative decisions.

They further maintained that the proposed arrangements had not been implemented and that no evidence had been presented showing that any eligible Kenyan had been denied access to a housing unit because of the announcements.

However, Justice Mande found that the petition raised a legitimate constitutional question, noting that individuals do not have to wait for an actual violation of their rights before approaching the courts where a threatened violation has been demonstrated.

The judge also observed that the respondents and interested parties had acknowledged that the presidential pronouncements had no legal effect because an existing law already governed the allocation of affordable housing units.

In determining the matter, the court emphasised that the Affordable Housing Act and its accompanying regulations provide the legal framework for allocating the units, and that any changes to the established criteria must be made through legally recognised processes.

The ruling means that teachers and police officers cannot be given preferential access solely on the basis of the President’s 2025 announcements

They remain eligible to apply for affordable housing under the existing allocation framework.

The court did not invalidate the Affordable Housing Act or stop the wider housing programme.

It consequently declared that the pronouncements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, were of no legal effect and could not alter or supplement the allocation criteria established under the Act and its Regulations.