The High Court has dealt a blow to President William Ruto’s Affordable Housing Programme after declaring his pronouncements seeking to reserve housing units for teachers and police officers legally ineffective.

In a judgment delivered at the Milimani High Court on Thursday, October 29, 2026, Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande ruled that the President could not introduce preferential housing allocation criteria without a supporting legal or policy framework.

Citizen Digital reported that the court found that the presidential announcements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, could not lawfully change the allocation criteria established under the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.

The announcements had proposed reserving 20 per cent of affordable housing units for teachers and another 20 per cent for members of the National Police Service, raising questions about whether particular professional groups could receive preferential treatment under a programme intended to benefit Kenyans across different backgrounds.

The ruling followed a constitutional petition filed by John Maina Ndegwa, Marshalls Tito Ongoya and two other petitioners, who challenged the proposed allocation arrangements.

According to Capital FM, the petitioners argued that the government could not grant selected professional groups preferential access to affordable housing without a proper legal basis.

They maintained that the programme draws on public resources and contributions from Kenyans across different occupations, making it necessary to establish fair and transparent allocation criteria.

The petitioners also questioned whether the proposed arrangements were consistent with Article 43 of the Constitution, which recognises the right to accessible and adequate housing, as well as constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

The Star reported that the court distinguished between the President’s authority to coordinate government operations and the power to change laws enacted by Parliament.

In its ruling, the court emphasised that executive authority must operate within the existing legal framework and cannot be used to introduce new entitlements that legislation does not provide for.

The judge observed that the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations already establish the framework for allocating housing units. Any changes to those criteria must therefore follow the procedures recognised by law.

Kenyans.co.ke reported that the government had defended the President’s pronouncements, arguing that he was acting within his constitutional mandate to direct and coordinate the functions of government ministries and departments.

The respondents also maintained that the announcements had not amended the Affordable Housing Act or replaced the Affordable Housing Board’s responsibility for administering the programme.

However, the court found that the petition raised a legitimate constitutional question, even though the proposed preferential arrangements had not yet been implemented.

The judge subsequently declared that the presidential pronouncements made on June 3 and September 13, 2025, had no legal effect in the absence of a statutory or policy basis.

TUKO.co.ke also reported that the court's decision centred on the need to ensure that housing allocation follows the law rather than presidential announcements.

The ruling does not prevent teachers or police officers from applying for affordable housing. Instead, it means the two groups cannot be given preferential treatment solely on the basis of the disputed presidential pronouncements.

Eligible applicants must continue to be considered under the applicable allocation framework, with the existing law governing how housing units are distributed.

The decision also reinforces the principle that presidential authority is subject to the Constitution and legislation passed by Parliament.

Justice Nyaundi Mande made no order on costs, recognising the public-interest nature of the petition.

The ruling comes as the government's Affordable Housing Programme continues to attract public attention over the distribution of housing units, eligibility requirements and the role of contributions collected through the housing levy.

For the government, the judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that any proposed preferential allocation arrangements have a clear legal foundation before they are implemented.

For Kenyans seeking affordable homes, the decision places renewed emphasis on the need for transparent allocation procedures that comply with the law.