Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah leads six petitioners challenging the mandatory Housing Levy.
Six petitioners ask the Supreme Court to stop the mandatory 1.5 per cent levy and order refunds of money collected from employees.
Six Kenyans, led by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, have filed a Housing Levy appeal at the Supreme Court. They want judges to stop the mandatory 1.5 per cent deductions and order refunds for employees.
The petitioners filed their appeal on Monday, November 9, challenging earlier decisions that upheld the Affordable Housing Act. Their case targets the compulsory contributions supporting President William Ruto’s Affordable Housing Programme.
Housing Levy appeal challenges compulsory payments
The petitioners want the Supreme Court to declare Sections 4 and 5 of the Act unlawful. These provisions establish the mandatory levy. They also seek an order stopping the Kenya Revenue Authority from collecting it.
In addition, they want the government to refund all money collected from employees under the law. They argue that compulsory deductions arbitrarily deprive contributors of private property.
Their appeal questions whether Kenyans should have to finance houses they may never own. The petitioners argue that the deductions breach constitutional protections relating to property, taxation and fairness.
They further contend that taxation must distribute financial obligations fairly, rather than disproportionately burden poor and marginalised people. On that basis, they describe the levy as an unfair financial obligation on income earners.
Land use and public participation also contested
Beyond payroll deductions, the petitioners challenge the government’s use of public and community land for housing construction. They object to building homes on such land and later selling them to private individuals.
They also dispute the public participation process preceding the law’s enactment. In their view, the process did not meaningfully take account of Kenyans’ views.
However, the Court of Appeal upheld the Affordable Housing Act in its September 25, 2026 judgment. It rejected arguments that the legislation violated the law.
That decision followed the High Court’s October 22, 2024 ruling dismissing consolidated petitions against the same legislation. The High Court found that the project had undergone adequate public participation.
It also upheld the mandatory 1.5 per cent employee and employer contributions as a valid tax or levy mechanism. The six petitioners now want the Supreme Court to overturn those earlier rulings.
