High Court declares Ruto’s 20 per cent housing allocation directive for teachers, police officers unlawful

High Court declares Ruto’s 20 per cent housing allocation directive for teachers, police officers unlawful

The judge found that although the President has constitutional authority to direct and coordinate the functions of the national executive, that power does not extend to changing laws enacted by Parliament.

The High Court has declared President William Ruto’s pronouncements reserving 20 per cent of affordable housing units for teachers and police officers to be of no legal effect, ruling that the Head of State cannot introduce preferential allocation criteria outside the law.

In a judgment delivered on October 29, 2026, Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande ruled that the President’s remarks made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, could not lawfully alter or supplement the allocation criteria established under the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.

The judge found that although the President has constitutional authority to direct and coordinate the functions of the national executive, that power does not extend to changing laws 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 Nyaundi ruled.

The decision followed a constitutional petition filed by human rights advocates John Maina Ndegwa and Marshall Tito Ongoya, who challenged the proposed preferential treatment of teachers and police officers in the government’s affordable housing programme.

The petitioners argued that the programme relies on public resources and contributions from Kenyans across different professions and economic backgrounds, making it discriminatory to reserve a portion of the houses for selected groups without a legal basis.

Latest Stories

• Basement supermarket could be sustaining survivors in Eastleigh rubble - rescue team
• KNCHR raises alarm over targeting of persons seeking sanctuary in Kenya
• DRC medics celebrate as final Ebola patient leaves Mongbwalu treatment centre
• Russia, African Union sign new cooperation framework at Moscow summit

They contended that unemployed young people, informal sector workers, other civil servants and members of the general public were equally entitled to benefit from the programme.

The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the President was exercising his constitutional mandate under Article 132(3)(b) to coordinate government functions.

They maintained that the presidential pronouncements were policy statements that neither amended the Affordable Housing Act nor restricted other Kenyans from accessing housing.

The Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers also opposed the case, arguing that the President’s remarks followed discussions with teachers’ representatives on improving their housing conditions.

However, Justice Nyaundi found that the respondents’ reliance on the President’s constitutional powers was misplaced, noting that the existing law already provides the framework for allocating the houses.

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

She added that introducing preferential treatment through executive declarations would undermine the rule of law, equality, transparency and accountable governance.

The court also rejected arguments that the petition was premature, finding that although the proposed preference had not been implemented, it raised a valid constitutional question because the President’s remarks were intended to influence housing allocation.

“The entire Constitution has to be read as an integrated whole,” the judge observed, citing established principles of constitutional interpretation.

The court ultimately declared the presidential pronouncements legally ineffective in the absence of a statutory or policy basis.

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