The Lower Eastern Times Opening The Third Eye
The High Court has ruled that President William Ruto cannot legally reserve affordable housing units for teachers and police officers through presidential directives that are not supported by existing law.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, Justice Patricia Nyaudi Mande declared that Ruto’s pronouncements proposing to set aside 20 per cent of affordable housing units for teachers and another 20 per cent for police officers had no legal effect without a valid statutory or policy basis.
Click here to join our WhatsApp Channel
The judge said the President’s constitutional authority to coordinate government operations does not give him the power to amend legislation or introduce preferential allocation rules outside the legal framework established 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 Mande ruled.
She added that allowing the Executive to introduce such preferences without legal backing would undermine the rule of law and the authority of legislation enacted under the Constitution.
The court noted that the Affordable Housing Act and its accompanying regulations already establish the framework for allocating housing units. Any changes to the allocation criteria must therefore follow legally recognised procedures.
Petitioners challenge housing quotas
The case was filed by John Maina Ndegwa and Marshall Tito Ongoya against the State Law Office, the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), Nairobi Branch, and other respondents and interested parties.
The petitioners challenged the proposed reservation of housing units for teachers and police officers, arguing that the affordable housing programme draws on public resources and contributions from Kenyans working in different sectors.
They maintained that setting aside 20 per cent of the units for teachers and a further 20 per cent for police officers would unfairly favour the two groups without a clear legal basis or objective allocation criteria.
The petitioners also argued that the proposed quotas could violate constitutional principles on equality, non-discrimination, access to housing and the responsible management of public resources.
They asked the court to declare the directives unconstitutional, stop their implementation and require the Affordable Housing Board to establish transparent, inclusive and non-discriminatory allocation procedures.
Court rejects government’s argument
The respondents defended the President’s actions, arguing that he was exercising his constitutional mandate under Article 132(3)(b), which empowers him to direct and coordinate the functions of ministries and government departments.
They maintained that the President’s statements neither amended the Affordable Housing Act nor displaced the Affordable Housing Board’s responsibilities. They also argued that the petition was premature because no actual housing allocation had been shown to deny anyone access to a unit.
However, Justice Mande rejected the argument that the matter was premature, ruling that the petition raised a legitimate constitutional question despite the proposed preferential allocations not having been implemented.
The judge observed that the Constitution allows individuals to seek court intervention where constitutional provisions or rights are threatened with violation.
Court cites equality and rule of law
In determining the case, the court found that introducing preferential treatment through presidential declarations without a legal foundation would undermine constitutional principles, including equality, transparency and accountable governance.
“Once measured against Article 10, the impugned remarks cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny,” the judge ruled.
She emphasised that the President, like all other state officers, is bound by the Constitution and the law.
The court consequently declared that Ruto’s pronouncements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, had no legal effect in the absence of a supporting statutory or policy framework.
The ruling means the President’s statements alone cannot lawfully establish the proposed housing quotas for teachers and police officers outside the allocation framework provided by law.
