The Milimani High Court ruled that President William Ruto’s announcements reserving 20% of affordable housing units for teachers and police officers cannot change the allocation criteria set out in the Affordable Housing Act and its Regulations without a legal basis.
In a judgment delivered virtually in Nairobi on Thursday, October 29, 2026, Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande declared that the presidential pronouncements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, had no legal effect in the absence of a supporting statutory or policy framework.
The decision means the President’s announcements cannot, on their own, provide a lawful basis for giving the two professional groups preferential access to affordable housing units outside the existing allocation rules.
“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 petition was filed by John Maina Ndegwa and Marshalls Tito Ongoya, alongside two other petitioners, who challenged the proposed allocation of housing units to selected groups.
They sought declarations that the directives were unconstitutional and that the right to housing under Article 43 of the Constitution applies equally to all Kenyans and cannot be reserved for specific professional groups without lawful justification.
In the judgment, Justice Nyaundi Mande emphasised that presidential authority does not permit the Executive to override legislation enacted by Parliament or create preferential rights outside the law.
The court noted that allowing executive pronouncements to change statutory requirements would undermine the rule of law and the constitutional framework governing public administration.
Judge Nyaundi also referred to Article 10 of the Constitution, which establishes national values and principles of governance, including the rule of law, equality, transparency and accountability.
The judgment further cited constitutional interpretation principles requiring the Constitution to be read as an integrated whole, with its provisions supporting rather than contradicting one another.
The court observed that the respondents and interested parties had conceded that the President’s pronouncements had no legal effect, noting that an existing legal framework already governs the allocation of affordable housing units.
Justice Nyaundi Mande consequently declared that the announcements could not lawfully alter or supplement the criteria established under the Affordable Housing Act and its Regulations.
The petitioners also sought orders restraining the implementation of the directives and requiring the Affordable Housing Board to develop transparent, inclusive allocation criteria consistent with constitutional principles.