Court quashes Ruto’s directive reserving 20pc of affordable homes for teachers, police

The High Court has declared unconstitutional a directive by President William Ruto to reserve 20 per cent of affordable housing units for teachers and police officers, ruling that the preferential allocation had no legal basis.

The decision means teachers and police officers will have to apply for the houses under the same criteria as other Kenyansrather than enjoy a special allocation based on their professions.

In her ruling, Justice Patricia Mande Nyaundi said the President’s directives could not override the criteria for allocating the units established under the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.

“The directives of President Ruto have no legal effect and cannot alter or supplement the criteria for allocation of the housing units established under the Affordable Housing Act and its Regulations,” she ruled.

Justice Nyaundi said the directives issued on June 3 and September 13, 2025 lacked a statutory or policy basis and were therefore legally ineffective.

She proceeded to quash them, making no order on costs because the case was in the public interest.

The judge said that while the Executive could facilitate the implementation of the law, it could not alter it or create rights and preferences outside the established legal framework.

“To conclude otherwise would be to permit executive fiat to prevail over a statutory framework enacted pursuant to the Constitution, an outcome fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law,” she said.

Justice Nyaundi also noted that Attorney-General Dorcas Oduor, who represented the President, had conceded that the pronouncements had no legal effect.

Ms Oduor told the court that legislation already existed to govern the allocation of affordable housing units.

However, the Attorney-General also defended the President’s directives, arguing that they were made under Article 132(3)(b) of the Constitution, which empowers the Head of State to direct and coordinate the functions of ministries and government departments.

The judge rejected that argument, saying the constitutional provision could not be interpreted in isolation from Article 10, which sets out the national values and principles of governance, including the rule of law.

“The AG’s reliance on Article 132(3)(b) of the Constitution is misplaced,” she ruled.

Read: How bid to tighten law to recall MPs flopped in Parliament

She added that the President’s authority to coordinate the national Executive did not extend to changing criteria established by Parliament.

The court noted that the Attorney-General had not denied that the President’s remarks contemplated preferential treatment for teachers and officers of the National Police Service.

“Indeed, the court is urged by the AG to treat those remarks as operative directives, yet no such preference exists within the statutory framework,” Justice Nyaundi said.

She added that the remarks violated Article 10 by seeking to introduce, through an executive declaration, a criterion not recognised by law.

“In so doing, they offend the rule of law and undermine the constitutional values of equality, transparency and accountable governance,” she said.

The judge further sadid that the President, like every other State officer, was bound by the Constitution and the law.

The ruling followed a petition filed by John Maina Ndegwa and Marshalls Tito Ongoya, who challenged the President’s directives on the allocation of affordable housing units.

The petitioners argued that reserving 20 per cent of the units for teachers and police officers would violate the principle of equality and undermine the right to housing under Article 43 of the Constitution.

They sought a declaration that the directives were unconstitutional, null and void, as well as orders restraining the Attorney-General and other respondents from implementing or acting on them and the associated memorandum of understanding.

They also asked the court to compel the Affordable Housing Board to develop and publish inclusive, non-discriminatory allocation criteria for the units.

The petitioners further sought orders directing Parliament to enact laws or regulations governing the allocation of affordable housing in accordance with the Constitution.

They argued that the directives violated several constitutional provisions, including those on national values, equality, property rights, the right to housing, public finance and accountability.

The respondents, including the Attorney-General and the Kenya National Union of Teachers (Knut), urged the court to dismiss the petition, arguing that the claims were speculative, generalised and unsupported by sufficient evidence to warrant constitutional relief.

The Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (Kuppet) also opposed the petition.

Kuppet deputy Secretary-General Moses Nthurima said President Ruto had hosted more than 100,000 teachers’ representatives at State House on September 13, 2025, during the Walimu na Rais forum.

The petitioners maintained that the case was properly before the court because the President’s remarks had been made at a public official function and widely reported by the media.

Justice Nyaundi agreed that the petition was properly filed and raised substantial constitutional questions. She consequently allowed the prayers sought and quashed the directives.

Reacting to the ruling, Kuppet Secretary-General Akello Misori criticised the decision.

“The courts are enemies of progress and are captured by activism. Teachers and the police are heavily taxed and are the majority contributors,” he said.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.