High Court blocks Ruto’s plan to reserve 20% of affordable houses for teachers, police

The High Court has ruled that President William Ruto cannot reserve a portion of affordable housing units for teachers and police officers without a legal provision authorising the preferential allocation.

In a judgment delivered today, Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande declared the President's pronouncements on allocating 20 per cent of the houses to the two groups to be of no legal effect in the absence of a statutory or policy basis.

The court found that the President's constitutional powers to coordinate government operations do not allow him to introduce new housing allocation criteria outside the framework set by Parliament.

The ruling follows a constitutional petition filed by human rights advocates John Maina Ndegwa and Marshall Tito Ongoya. They challenged the proposed preferential treatment of teachers and police officers under the government's affordable housing programme.

The petitioners argued that the programme draws on public resources and contributions from Kenyans across professions and income groups, making it unfair to reserve houses for selected categories of workers without a clear legal basis. They said other groups, including unemployed youth, informal sector workers, civil servants and the general public, should have equal opportunities to benefit.

The respondents defended the directive, arguing that the President was acting within his constitutional mandate under Article 132(3)(b), which empowers him to coordinate government functions. They said his remarks were policy pronouncements that neither amended the Affordable Housing Act nor prevented other Kenyans from accessing the houses.

The Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) also opposed the petition, arguing that the President's announcement followed engagements with teachers' representatives on how to improve their housing conditions.

Justice Nyaundi ruled that executive authority cannot be used to change statutory provisions or create special entitlements that are not provided for in law. She said the existing legal framework already provides the basis for allocating affordable housing units and must be followed by the executive.

The judge warned that allowing preferential allocation through presidential declarations would undermine the rule of law, equality, transparency and accountability in the management of public programmes.

The court also dismissed arguments that the petition was premature because the proposed arrangement had not yet been implemented. Justice Nyaundi held that the President's statements raised a legitimate constitutional question because they were meant to influence the allocation of houses under the programme.

She made no order on costs, noting that the case had been filed in the public interest.