Court dismisses LSK objection to stop petition over judicial boycott

By  Joseph Wangui

Correspondent

Nation Media Group

The High Court has declined to strike out a petition challenging the Law Society of Kenya’s decision to boycott 12 judges and one magistrate who obtained court orders blocking disciplinary or corruption-related investigations against them.

Justice David Mburu dismissed LSK’s preliminary objection, clearing the way for the petition by lawyer Dr Adrian Kamotho Njenga to proceed to a full hearing.

LSK had argued that the issues raised by Dr Njenga could be resolved through the Society’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms before being taken to court.

But the court ruled that the dispute transcended an ordinary internal disagreement between LSK and one of its members because the petition raised questions about judicial independence, access to justice, legal representation and the alleged threatened interference with court proceedings. 

It held that those issues cannot be settled through the LSK’s internal dispute-resolution procedures. It directed that the hearing of the case and an application for interim orders against the boycott proceed on their merits.

LSK had accused the Judiciary of failing to adequately address allegations of judicial misconduct, corruption, delays, registry inefficiencies and weak accountability mechanisms.

It directed advocates to stage a one-day nationwide boycott on July 22, 2026 before beginning an indefinite boycott from July 23 against the 13 judicial officers for obtaining court orders restraining JSC disciplinary processes or EACC and DCI investigations.

According to the LSK's guidelines to its members, the targeted judges include Chief Justice Martha Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and Supreme Court judges Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung'u, Isaac Lenaola and the late Mohamed Ibrahim.

This was because they filed constitutional proceedings at High Court in 2025 and obtained orders after the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) asked them to respond to petitions seeking their removal over alleged judicial misconduct.

Others targeted are Court of Appeal judge Sankale Ole Kantai, Environment and Land Court judges Anthony Ombwayo, Lucas Naikuni and Lucy Waithaka, and High Court judges Dora Chepkwony and Josephine Mong'are, and chief magistrate Stella Atambo.

Under the society's operational guidelines, lawyers were instructed not to participate in hearings before the affected judges, seek transfers, recusals or adjournments of cases and report advocates or judicial officers who declined to facilitate the boycott.

Dr Njenga's case names the JSC, the affected judicial officers and the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association as interested parties. 

On August 3, the court had issued interim orders restraining LSK from disrupting proceedings before the listed officers or any other judge pending determination of the objection.

LSK said the measures responded to complaints about alleged judicial corruption, misconduct, delays, registry inefficiencies, case management and weak complaint-handling systems.

But Dr Njenga argued that the Law Society of Kenya Act does not authorise LSK to compel lawyers to withhold professional services, determine which judges may hear cases or threaten disciplinary action against advocates who reject the boycott.

In response, LSK asked the court to strike out the petition, arguing that the dispute concerned its internal policy and statutory functions. 

It said Dr Njenga had not exhausted Regulations 95 and 96 of the LSK (General) Regulations, 2020, which provide for negotiation, conciliation, mediation and arbitration.

Justice Mburu rejected that position. “I am persuaded, in the circumstances of this case, that the dispute as pleaded transcends an ordinary internal disagreement between a member and the Law Society of Kenya,” he said.

He added: “The issues raised in the Petition are of serious constitutional nature.”

“There is no doubt the arbitrator(s) will have no jurisdiction over the issues raised in the petition,” Justice Mburu said, holding that the questions fell within the High Court’s exclusive constitutional jurisdiction.

He said the LSK Regulations did not provide “an adequate and effective mechanism” for resolving the constitutional and public-interest questions or granting the full remedies sought.

The court declined to determine whether the petition had improperly constitutionalised an internal policy dispute.

“At this stage, the court cannot determine that the dispute is merely an internal policy disagreement without interrogating the substance and effect of the impugned resolutions and communications,” it ruled.

The court further held that conservatory orders could not be resolved through a preliminary objection because they required evidence on prejudice, public interest and whether the petition might be rendered ineffective.

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