A petition has been filed at the High Court seeking to suspend the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) boycott targeting selected judges and judicial officers.
Advocate Dr. Adrian Kamotho filed the case, arguing that the boycott threatens access to justice, judicial independence and fair hearings.
The application was filed under a certificate of urgency. It seeks temporary orders to suspend LSK resolutions and notices issued between July 17 and July 22, 2026.
Lawyer Raises Concerns Over Boycott
Kamotho says the boycott has created a difficult situation for advocates.
He argues that lawyers now face a choice between following LSK directives and meeting their professional duties to clients and the courts.
Court documents indicate that the boycott could delay cases, increase costs and disrupt ongoing proceedings. It may also affect urgent matters that require quick action.
The petitioner wants the High Court to stop LSK from directing advocates not to appear before judges listed in the boycott.
Additionally, he wants the Society barred from encouraging lawyers to seek case transfers or adjournments simply because a judicial officer has been targeted.
Kamotho is also seeking orders preventing LSK from taking disciplinary action against advocates who choose not to participate in the boycott.
Questions Over LSK Authority
The petition further seeks to stop LSK from threatening judges and judicial officers who continue handling cases.
Court records show that LSK held a nationwide boycott on July 22. Meanwhile, the targeted boycott against selected judges began on July 23 and remains ongoing.
According to Kamotho, LSK does not have the legal authority to force lawyers to withdraw representation. He also argues that the Society cannot determine which judges should hear cases.
In his view, the boycott interferes with judicial independence. He has cited Articles 159 and 160 of the Constitution to support his position.
Impact on Justice System
The petitioner warns that the boycott could affect the rights of people seeking justice.
He says delays may have serious consequences, especially in criminal cases and other urgent matters.
The case also raises questions about whether LSK can compel advocates to stop providing legal services. It further challenges whether the Society can organise an indefinite boycott against individual judges.
Public Interest Concerns
Kamotho says the dispute goes beyond an internal LSK matter. He argues that it affects lawyers, judges, litigants and the wider justice system.
He maintains that courts should continue operating without interruptions and that advocates should keep representing their clients.
At the same time, he clarified that the orders he seeks would not prevent LSK from pursuing complaints against judicial officers through lawful procedures.
