6 Kenyans File Petition to Stop Housing Levy Deductions

The petitioners, led by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, filed an appeal at the Supreme Court on Monday, November 9, seeking to stop the deductions and secure refunds of money already collected.

They also want the Supreme Court to overturn previous rulings upholding the Act, arguing that Kenyans should not be forced to finance houses they may never own.

In their appeal, they also want Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, which provide for the mandatory Housing Levy, declared unlawful and to stop the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) from collecting the levy.

The petitioners argued that the deductions violate constitutional protections on property rights, taxation and fairness, describing the levy as an unfair financial burden imposed on income earners.

“Tax measures must be socially just, adequate, equitable, and progressive and must not disproportionately shift the tax burden to the poor and marginalised,” the petitioners argued.

"We seek an order of prohibition restraining the respondents from charging, levying or in any way collecting the Affordable Housing Levy based on the aforesaid Affordable Housing Act," they added.

The petitioners also asked the court to compel the government to refund all money collected from employees, arguing that the mandatory contributions amount to an arbitrary deprivation of private property.

Beyond the deductions, the petitioners are challenging the government's use of public and community land to construct houses that are eventually sold to private individuals.

They are also challenging the public participation process, claiming that the views of Kenyans were not meaningfully considered before the law was enacted.

The latest petition comes weeks after the Court of Appeal upheld the Affordable Housing Act in a judgment delivered on September 25, 2026, dismissing arguments that the legislation violated the law.

The appellate court's decision followed an earlier High Court ruling delivered on October 22, 2024, which dismissed consolidated petitions challenging the same legislation.

The High Court found that the project underwent adequate public participation and that the mandatory 1.5 per cent contributions by employees and employers constituted a valid tax or levy mechanism.