In a significant ruling, Kenya's High Court has declared President William Ruto's directive to allocate 20% of affordable housing units to teachers and police officers as unconstitutional. The court's decision, made on October 30, 2026, by Judge Patricia Mande Nyaundi, stated that the President does not have the authority to alter the criteria for housing allocation set by law. This ruling implies that teachers and police officers can no longer claim allocation of affordable housing based on the President's orders issued on June 3 and September 13, 2025.
The case was brought forth by John Maina Ndegwa and Marshalls Tito Ongoya, who argued that the President's directives violated the principles of equality and fairness in the allocation of housing, as enshrined in the Kenyan Constitution. The petitioners sought to have the court declare the directives null and void, and to compel the government to establish and publish criteria for housing allocation that are fair and non-discriminatory. The court agreed with the petitioners, finding that the President's directives had no basis in law or government policy.
The court's decision does not, however, bar teachers and police officers from applying for affordable housing. They can still submit applications, but they will not be given priority based on the President's directives, which have been nullified. Instead, their applications will be considered based on the criteria set out in the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations, just like other applicants. The ruling has been welcomed by those who argue that the allocation of housing should be based on need and merit, rather than on directives from the President.
The Attorney General, Dorcas Oduor, had defended the President's directives, citing Article 132(3)(b) of the Constitution, which grants the President the power to coordinate the activities of government ministries and departments. However, Judge Nyaundi rejected this argument, stating that this power must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution, which emphasizes the rule of law, equality, transparency, and accountability. The Judge also noted that there is no provision in the law governing affordable housing that gives priority to teachers and police officers.
The ruling has been criticized by some groups, including the Kenya Union of Post-Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET), which has described the court's decision as an obstacle to progress. The group's Secretary-General, Akello Misori, claimed that the judiciary is being manipulated by activists and that it is failing to support development initiatives. However, others have welcomed the ruling, arguing that it upholds the principles of fairness and equality in the allocation of public resources.
The Affordable Housing Act, which was passed to provide for the development and management of affordable housing, has been hailed as a critical step towards addressing Kenya's housing shortage. However, the implementation of the Act has been marred by controversy, with some groups arguing that the allocation of housing units has been unfair and discriminatory. The court's ruling is expected to have significant implications for the allocation of affordable housing in Kenya and may lead to a review of the criteria used to allocate housing units.
The court's decision has also raised questions about the role of the President in the allocation of public resources. While the President has significant powers under the Constitution, the court's ruling suggests that these powers must be exercised in accordance with the law and the principles of fairness and equality. The ruling is a significant check on the President's powers and underscores the importance of the judiciary in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
Key points
- The Kenyan High Court has nullified President William Ruto's directive to allocate 20% of affordable housing units to teachers and police officers, citing it as unconstitutional.
