my competitive advantage is that i'm having fun

Max Verstappen is currently the fastest driver on the track. He’s already up to P5.

🚨 Court of Appeal upholds the Affordable Housing Act as constitutional, dismissing 42 consolidated cases challenging the law and the Housing Levy deducted from salaries. The background matters. The original 1.5% housing levy, introduced through the Finance Act 2023, was struck down by the High Court in 2023 as unconstitutional, partly for unfairly targeting formal-sector workers. Parliament responded by enacting the Affordable Housing Act, 2024, designed to cure those defects and widen the levy to all income earners. A fresh wave of 42 petitions then challenged the new Act. On 25 September 2026, a five-judge bench of the Court of Appeal, convened by President Musinga because the appeals raised weighty questions of law, dismissed them and upheld the Act. The constitutional arguments the court weighed cut both ways. For the challengers: that the scheme unfairly compels formally employed Kenyans to finance housing they have no assurance of ever receiving, offending fairness and equality under Article 27; that mandatory contributions, regardless of a person's housing needs, choices or existing ownership, are irrational and coercive; that Section 54, restricting sale or transfer of an affordable unit, interferes with property rights under Article 40; and that Section 41's use of public land, and the legislative process itself, were flawed. For the State, and reflected in the courts' reasoning: that the Act is a legitimate policy instrument through which the State meets its constitutional duty under Article 43 to ensure accessible and adequate housing; that socio-economic rights may be realised progressively through legislation and public programmes; that the levy is a lawful contribution shared across income earners rather than a discriminatory tax; and that the land and process objections were unfounded, Section 41 aligning with the Land Act and the National Land Commission's mandate. This decision sharpens a debate that will not end here. It pits the progressive realisation of socio-economic rights, the State levying broadly to fund housing for the many, against individual autonomy and equality, the objection that a worker can be compelled to pay for a benefit they may never see and did not choose. It also tests how far the State may go in mandating contributions for a public good, and where "progressive realisation" shades into coercion. These are precisely the questions likely to travel to the Supreme Court. The Act, and the Housing Levy, stand as constitutional and enforceable, and the deductions continue with the Court of Appeal's backing. But this is very likely not the final word: an appeal to the Supreme Court is probable given the stakes, and, separately, disputes over individual housing projects, land use, environmental approvals and public participation, as in the Southlands case, continue on their own facts. The law is upheld; the wider contest over how it is implemented, and whether the apex court agrees, is not over. 👉 Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on constitutional law, public finance and housing.

I'm not really a mature person because if I was Jules I'd never speak to Lorna ever again

Mnaambiwa mpunguze food noise saa yenye Christmas imekaribia. Maundu ta maya mangai January kindly.