President William Ruto’s plan to give teachers and police officers preferential access to affordable housing has suffered a major setback after the High Court ruled that his directives have no legal effect without a legal basis.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, October 29, 2026, Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande declared that the President cannot introduce special housing allocation criteria outside the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.
The ruling effectively blocks Ruto’s proposal to reserve 20 per cent of affordable housing units for teachers and another 20 per cent for police officers unless the arrangement is backed by law.
“Executive authority may facilitate the implementation of the law, but it cannot alter the law or create rights and preferences outside it,” Justice Mande ruled.
The judge said presidential announcements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, could not override allocation rules already established by Parliament.
The decision follows a constitutional petition filed by John Maina Ndegwa, Marshalls Tito Ongoya and two other petitioners challenging the proposed preferential treatment.
The petitioners argued that the affordable housing programme is financed through public resources and contributions from Kenyans across different professions, making it unfair to favour selected groups without lawful justification.
They maintained that teachers and police officers should not receive preferential treatment at the expense of other eligible Kenyans, including unemployed youth, informal sector workers and other civil servants.
The petitioners further argued that the proposed arrangement violated constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination and fair access to housing.
They wanted the court to compel the Affordable Housing Board to review its allocation criteria and ensure all eligible Kenyans have a fair opportunity to benefit from the programme.
They also sought orders stopping government agencies from implementing the presidential directives.
However, the respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the President's announcements were policy statements rather than binding administrative decisions.
They maintained that Ruto was exercising his constitutional mandate to coordinate government functions and that his remarks had not amended the law or prevented other Kenyans from applying for houses.
Justice Mande rejected the argument that presidential powers could be used to change allocation criteria established through legislation.
“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,” the judge stated.
The court also dismissed claims that the petition was premature because the proposed allocations had not been implemented.
Justice Mande found that the announcements raised legitimate constitutional questions because they were intended to influence how affordable housing units would be distributed.
The court consequently declared the presidential pronouncements legally ineffective without an appropriate statutory or policy framework.
Follow our social media pages for breaking news updates, in-depth stories and videos.
news@nairobilens.ke
