NAIROBI, Kenya — The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) has called on the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to suspend its planned nationwide court boycott, warning that the industrial action would primarily prejudice litigants by delaying the delivery of justice.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, KMJA acknowledged the concerns raised by the lawyers’ body regarding judicial accountability, court administration and efficiency, but argued that dialogue—not withdrawal from court proceedings—was the appropriate avenue for resolving the issues.
Boycott Will Hurt Litigants, Says KMJA
The association said it had considered LSK’s statements issued on July 17 and July 20, 2026, and noted that the Judiciary has already recognised challenges including case delays, registry inefficiencies, case management and judicial accountability.
According to KMJA, reforms are already underway to address these concerns.
While describing the issues raised by LSK as legitimate, the association maintained that boycotting court proceedings would not punish the institution but would instead delay justice for ordinary Kenyans with pending cases.
Concern Over Targeting Individual Judges
KMJA also expressed concern over LSK’s planned boycott of specific judicial officers, including members of the Supreme Court.
The association noted that some of the judges named by LSK are parties to matters currently before courts of competent jurisdiction.
It warned that directing advocates not to appear before judges who have exercised their constitutional right to seek legal redress could be perceived as an attempt to influence ongoing court proceedings and would be inconsistent with the constitutional principle of judicial independence.
Calls for Evidence-Based Complaints
On allegations of corruption and misconduct within the Judiciary, KMJA reiterated its zero-tolerance stance, saying all credible complaints should be investigated promptly and impartially.
However, it urged LSK to channel specific, evidence-backed complaints through the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman rather than publicly naming judicial officers before due process is followed.
Ongoing Judiciary Reforms
The association acknowledged that case backlog remains a major challenge but said it is driven by multiple factors that require collaborative solutions.
KMJA highlighted several ongoing reforms, including:
- Active case management.
- Digitisation of court processes.
- Automation of court registries.
- Expansion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
- Continuous judicial performance monitoring.
Regarding the planned publication of individual judicial performance data, KMJA said it supports transparency but requested that the release be deferred until the ongoing Case Weighting Study and digitisation of the Case Tracking System are completed to ensure fairness and accuracy.
Dialogue Proposed
As a way forward, KMJA proposed urgent structured dialogue between the Bench and the Bar through the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ), Court Users Committees, or a dedicated Bar-Bench forum.
The association also appealed to advocates to continue representing their clients while discussions continue, stressing that the constitutional rights of litigants should not be compromised by actions that disrupt court proceedings.
KMJA reaffirmed its commitment to working with the LSK, the Judiciary, the JSC and other justice sector stakeholders to strengthen judicial independence, improve court efficiency and restore public confidence in the administration of justice.
