A legal petition has been filed at the High Court aiming to halt the Law Society of Kenya's (LSK) ongoing boycott targeting specific judges and judicial officers. The petitioner argues that the boycott undermines access to justice, judicial independence, and the constitutional right to a fair trial.
Filed urgently by advocate Dr. Adrian Kamotho, the petition requests conservatory orders to suspend the enforcement of LSK's boycott resolutions issued between July 17 and July 22, 2026, pending full hearing.
Kamotho contends the boycott places lawyers in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between obeying the LSK directives and fulfilling their professional duties to clients and courts. The petition highlights risks such as case adjournments, delays, increased costs, disruption of ongoing proceedings, and potential loss of liberty, property, or critical evidence.
The application seeks to restrain the LSK from directing advocates to avoid appearing before the boycotted judges, from requesting case adjournments or transfers solely due to the boycott, and from disciplining lawyers who refuse to participate. It also calls for protection of judges who continue hearing cases despite the boycott from threats or adverse recommendations by the Society.
The nationwide boycott began on July 22, 2026, with the targeted boycott of specific judges starting on July 23 and continuing indefinitely. Kamotho argues that the LSK lacks legal authority under the Law Society of Kenya Act or Advocates Act to mandate withdrawal of legal representation or to dictate judicial functions.
He asserts that the boycott infringes on judicial independence, violating constitutional provisions under Articles 159 and 160, and jeopardizes litigants’ rights to equality before the law, access to justice, and fair hearing, especially in urgent criminal matters.
The petition raises constitutional questions about whether a professional body can lawfully compel lawyers to withhold services, restrict judges’ roles, or impose indefinite boycotts without following due legal process.
Kamotho emphasizes the dispute’s wider impact on litigants, advocates, judges, and the justice system, underscoring the need to uphold uninterrupted court proceedings and legal representation while still allowing lawful pursuit of judicial accountability.
