NAIROBI, Kenya – The High Court has dismissed a preliminary objection by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) seeking to stop a constitutional petition challenging its targeted boycott of selected judges and judicial officers.
Justice David Mburu ruled that LSK’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms could not adequately address the constitutional and public interest questions raised by the petition filed by lawyer Dr Adrian Kamotho Njenga.
The decision clears the way for Njenga’s petition and a related application to proceed to determination on their merits.
LSK argued internal mechanisms should be used
LSK had asked the court to strike out the petition at the preliminary stage, arguing that Njenga should first exhaust dispute-resolution mechanisms provided under Regulations 95 and 96 of the Law Society of Kenya (General) Regulations, 2020.
The Society argued that the regulations provide mechanisms including negotiation, conciliation, mediation and arbitration for disputes involving LSK, its members and its governance.
It maintained that the High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition before those mechanisms had been exhausted.
Justice Mburu rejected that argument, finding that the case went beyond an ordinary internal dispute between a professional society and one of its members.
Petition raises constitutional questions
The judge said the petition, as pleaded, raises issues affecting not only LSK members but also advocates, litigants, court users, judges and judicial officers.
The case raises questions concerning judicial independence, access to justice, administration of justice and constitutional rights.
Justice Mburu held that an arbitrator operating under the LSK regulations would not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutional questions raised in the petition or grant the full range of constitutional remedies being sought.
The court consequently found that the internal mechanisms relied upon by LSK did not provide an adequate and effective avenue for resolving the issues before it.
Challenge follows July court boycott
Njenga’s petition challenges a series of LSK resolutions and communications issued in July 2026 concerning a nationwide court boycott and a subsequent targeted boycott involving specified judges and judicial officers.
The targeted boycott was directed at judges and judicial officers identified by LSK in connection with court orders that had affected investigations or disciplinary processes involving members of the Judiciary.
According to the petition, LSK instructed advocates to refrain from participating in proceedings before the affected judicial officers and instead seek adjournments, transfers or recusal.
The petition also challenges measures that allegedly restricted the judicial functions that the targeted officers could perform.
Court declines to determine legality of boycott at this stage
Justice Mburu stressed that dismissing the preliminary objection did not amount to a determination that LSK’s boycott was unconstitutional or unlawful.
Instead, the court directed that Njenga’s petition and his Notice of Motion dated July 24, 2026 proceed to determination on their respective merits.
The court also declined to determine the substantive application for conservatory orders through the preliminary objection, holding that questions such as whether Njenga had established a prima facie case and demonstrated real prejudice would require consideration of evidence and judicial discretion.
Interim orders restraining LSK extended
Meanwhile, the court has extended interim orders restraining LSK from disrupting or interfering with court proceedings before the judges and judicial officers identified in its boycott communication, as well as other judicial officers.
Justice Mburu had initially issued the conservatory orders on August 3, directing that court proceedings continue without disruption while the jurisdictional objection was being considered.
The latest proceedings maintain those protections as the substantive case moves forward.
Njenga found to have standing
The court also found that Njenga had sufficient standing to bring the constitutional proceedings.
Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution provide broad avenues for individuals to institute proceedings in the public interest over alleged violations or threatened violations of constitutional rights and provisions.
Justice Mburu therefore declined to strike out the petition on the basis that Njenga lacked standing.
Substantive battle now moves ahead
The dismissal of the preliminary objection means the central dispute will now proceed to substantive determination.
The court will ultimately have to consider the legality and constitutionality of the challenged LSK resolutions and communications, including questions concerning judicial independence, access to justice, legal representation and LSK’s statutory powers.
The latest ruling therefore removes the procedural challenge raised by LSK but does not settle the underlying dispute over the Society’s targeted court boycott.
