NAIROBI, Kenya – President William Ruto’s plan to reserve affordable housing units for teachers and police officers has suffered a legal setback after the High Court ruled that presidential announcements cannot change the statutory rules governing who qualifies for the homes.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, October 29, 2026, Justice Nyaundi Patricia Mande declared that pronouncements made by Ruto on June 3 and September 13, 2025, had no legal effect without a supporting statutory or policy framework.
The court held that the President could not use executive authority to introduce preferential allocation criteria outside the framework established under the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.
The decision challenges the legal basis of the proposed preferential treatment, but does not invalidate Kenya’s wider affordable housing programme.
“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,” the judgment stated.
The ruling places renewed focus on how the government determines who gets access to homes developed under a programme funded partly through public resources and the affordable housing levy.
Why the Court Rejected Ruto’s Housing Pronouncements
Justice Mande emphasised that although the President has constitutional authority to direct and coordinate the functions of the national executive, those powers do not extend to changing legislation enacted by Parliament.
The court noted that the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations already provide a framework for allocating housing units. Any preferential arrangement must therefore have a valid legal basis rather than rely solely on presidential announcements.
The judge warned that allowing executive declarations to supplement or alter statutory requirements would undermine the rule of law, equality, transparency and accountability.
The decision also drew on Article 10 of the Constitution, which sets out national values and principles of governance, including the rule of law, equity, inclusiveness, transparency and accountability.
The court stressed that the Constitution must be interpreted as an integrated whole, with executive powers exercised consistently with the wider constitutional framework.
Petitioners Challenged Preferential Access
The petition was filed by John Maina Ndegwa and Marshalls Tito Ongoya alongside two other petitioners, who questioned the legality of reserving affordable housing units for selected professional groups.
They argued that the right to housing under Article 43 of the Constitution should be applied fairly and that preferential access for teachers and police officers required lawful justification.
The petition challenged the possibility of selected groups receiving priority in a public housing programme without allocation rules supporting that arrangement.
The respondents and interested parties defended the President’s authority to coordinate government functions. However, the court observed that they had conceded that the presidential pronouncements had no legal effect in the absence of an appropriate statutory or policy basis.
The judge also addressed the argument that the case was premature, noting that constitutional questions could be examined where a threatened violation of rights was raised, without requiring petitioners to wait until the disputed arrangement had been fully implemented.
What the Ruling Means for Teachers and Police Officers
The judgment does not mean teachers and police officers are barred from applying for affordable homes. Rather, the President’s announcements cannot, by themselves, give the two groups preferential access outside the existing legal allocation framework.
The ruling also does not automatically cancel individual housing allocations or abolish the affordable housing programme.
Instead, it reinforces the requirement that any special allocation arrangement must be anchored in law or a valid policy framework consistent with the Affordable Housing Act and the Constitution.
Ruto had publicly promoted the allocation arrangement as part of efforts to improve teachers’ welfare. On October 5, 2026, during World Teachers’ Day celebrations, he reiterated that 20 per cent of affordable homes had been reserved for teachers under an agreement involving the Affordable Housing Board, the Kenya National Union of Teachers and the Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers.
The latest ruling raises questions about the legal foundation for implementing such preferential arrangements and whether further formal measures would be needed to give them effect.
Court Reinforces Limits of Executive Power
The case highlights the constitutional limits on how government policy is introduced and implemented, particularly where public resources and access to essential services are involved.
Although the Executive can coordinate ministries and oversee the implementation of government programmes, the court made clear that these powers cannot replace the legislative process or create preferential rights outside existing law.
The petitioners had also sought orders restraining implementation of the disputed directives and requiring the Affordable Housing Board to establish transparent and inclusive allocation criteria.
