The High Court has ruled that President William Ruto's public pledges to reserve a share of affordable housing units for teachers and police officers have no legal effect, because they were not backed by any law or formal policy.

In a judgment delivered on Thursday, 29 October, Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande of the Milimani Law Courts held that the President's announcements of 3 June and 13 September 2025 could not change or add to the allocation criteria set out in the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.

The challenge

The petition was filed by human rights advocates John Maina Ndegwa and Marshall Tito Ongoya, among others. They challenged the President's statements that 20 per cent of units under the Affordable Housing Programme would go to police officers, and a similar share to teachers.

The petitioners argued that the programme is funded by levies paid by Kenyans of all professions and income levels, including the unemployed, informal sector workers and other civil servants, and that giving two groups preferential access was discriminatory. They also said the announcements were made without public participation and bypassed the Affordable Housing Board's legal mandate. Uzalendo News reports that they argued the two pledges together effectively reserved 40 per cent of publicly funded units.

Government's defence

The Attorney General and the other respondents said the President was exercising his role under Article 132(3)(b) of the Constitution to direct and coordinate government functions. They argued that the remarks were policy statements that neither amended the Act nor locked other Kenyans out, and that the petition was speculative.

The Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) also opposed the case, saying the teachers' allocation followed negotiations with teachers' representatives.

'It cannot alter the law'

Justice Nyaundi accepted that the President has authority to direct the executive, but found that this power does not stretch to rewriting criteria enacted by Parliament.

Executive authority "may facilitate the implementation of the law, but it cannot alter the law," the judge said, according to the Eastleigh Voice. She added that this authority "does not extend to varying statutory criteria enacted by Parliament."

She also rejected the argument that the case was premature because no units had yet been allocated under the quotas, holding that the statements were clearly meant to influence allocations and therefore raised a real constitutional question. Preferential treatment created through executive announcements, she said, would undermine the rule of law, equality and accountable governance.

What the ruling means

  • The pronouncements were declared legally ineffective; units must be allocated under the criteria in the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.
  • The ruling does not find that any teacher or police officer has unlawfully received a house.
  • No costs were awarded because the case was brought in the public interest.

The government had not said by Thursday afternoon whether it will appeal. The decision comes as the State continues to roll out affordable housing units across the country, a flagship project of the Ruto administration.

Photos: Eastleigh Voice/PCS (President Ruto at an affordable housing event); Uzalendo News (affordable housing blocks). Thumbnail design: HAMASTA MEDIA.