The High Court in Nairobi has ruled that President William Ruto’s directives reserving 20 per cent of affordable housing units for teachers and police officers have no legal effect without a statutory or policy basis.

Justice Patricia Mande Nyaundi, sitting at the Milimani Law Courts, on Thursday declared that the presidential pronouncements could not lawfully alter or supplement the allocation criteria established under the Affordable Housing Act, 2024, and its regulations.

The ruling followed a constitutional petition filed by lawyer John Maina Ndegwa and Marshalls Tito Ongoya challenging announcements made by the President on June 3 and September 13, 2025, in which he proposed preferential allocation of housing units to teachers and officers of the National Police Service.

The petitioners argued that the directives were unconstitutional, contending that they introduced preferential treatment for specific occupational groups without parliamentary approval, public participation or a legal framework governing the allocations.

They further argued that the pronouncements undermined the mandate of the Affordable Housing Board, which is responsible for overseeing the allocation of housing units under the Affordable Housing Act.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that it was premature and that the petitioners had not demonstrated any actual harm arising from the President’s remarks.

The respondents maintained that Article 132(3)(b) of the Constitution empowers the President to direct and coordinate the functions of ministries and government departments.

They further argued that the pronouncements did not amend the Affordable Housing Act ,override the Board’s statutory mandate, or constitute allocation decisions.

However, justice Nyaundi rejected the argument that the petition was premature, ruling that the Constitution allows individuals to seek redress where a violation of their rights is threatened, without having to wait for the violation to occur.

The judge held that the respondents had not disputed that the President made the remarks or that the pronouncements were intended to influence housing allocations in favour of teachers and police officers.

In addressing the scope of presidential powers, the court held that the authority to coordinate government functions could not be interpreted as granting the President the power to vary criteria established by Parliament.

“While the President may direct and coordinate the functions of the national executive, that authority does not extend to varying statutory criteria enacted by Parliament,” Justice Nyaundi ruled.

The court further said that executive authority could facilitate the implementation of existing laws but could not be used to create rights or preferences outside the legal framework.

“To conclude otherwise would be to permit executive fiat to prevail over a statutory framework enacted pursuant to the Constitution, an outcome fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law,” ruled the court.

The judge said that the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations provide the framework for allocating housing units, adding that any changes to the criteria must follow legally recognised procedures.

The Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET), which participated in the case as an interested party, opposed the petition, arguing that the President’s remarks were proposals that would require legislative amendments to take effect.

In its final orders, the court declared that the President’s pronouncements of June 3 and September 13, 2025, were of no legal effect in the absence of a statutory or policy basis and could not lawfully alter or supplement the existing housing allocation criteria.

“A declaration be and is hereby issued that the pronouncements made by the President on 3rd June 2025 and 13th September 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,” ruled the court.