The High Court in Nairobi has declared presidential pronouncements directing the allocation of 20 per cent of Affordable Housing Units to teachers and police officers unconstitutional, ruling that the statements had no legal force to alter the existing housing allocation framework.
In a judgment delivered virtually on October 29, 2026, Justice Nyaudi Patricia Mande of the Milimani High Court held that the presidential pronouncements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, could not lawfully change the criteria established under the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.
The case was filed by John Maina Ndegwa and Marshall Otongo on behalf of the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), Nairobi Branch, and two others.
Petition Challenged Housing Quotas for Teachers and Police
The petitioners challenged directives attributed to President William Ruto proposing that 20 per cent of affordable housing units be allocated to teachers and police officers.
They argued that reserving housing for specific professional groups without a clear statutory basis violated constitutional principles of equality, transparency, accountability and fair access to public resources.
The petition sought declarations that the directives were unconstitutional, an order restraining the respondents from implementing them, and directions requiring the Affordable Housing Board to follow non-discriminatory allocation criteria.
The petitioners also asked Parliament to enact laws or regulations governing the allocation of affordable housing units in accordance with the Constitution.
Government Opposed the Petition
The respondents opposed the case, arguing that the presidential statements did not amend or override the Affordable Housing Act.
They maintained that the allocation of housing remained governed by the statutory framework and that the petitioners had not demonstrated an actual violation of their constitutional rights.
The respondents also argued that the petition was speculative and lacked sufficient evidence to justify the relief sought.
The court, however, found that the petition was justiciable, noting that the constitutional challenge concerned public pronouncements with potential implications for the allocation of affordable housing.
Court Reaffirms Parliament’s Role in Housing Policy
In its analysis, the court emphasised that executive authority must operate within the Constitution and the law.
Justice Mande noted that Article 132(3)(b) of the Constitution could not be interpreted in isolation to give presidential pronouncements the power to override legislation enacted by Parliament.
The court observed that the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations already provide the legal framework for allocating housing units, and that any changes to the framework must follow the law.
The judgment stated that the presidential pronouncements could not lawfully alter the existing allocation criteria without a proper legal basis.
Court Declines to Award Costs
The court declared that the pronouncements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, concerning preferential allocation of affordable housing units to teachers and members of the National Police Service had no legal effect and could not lawfully alter or supplement the criteria established under the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.
The court made no order as to costs, citing the public interest nature of the case.
The ruling reinforces the principle that public housing allocation must be conducted within the legal framework established by Parliament rather than through pronouncements that lack the force of law.
