High Court Dismisses LSK Bid to Stop Challenge Against Targeted Judge Boycott

NAIROBI, Kenya Sep 18 – 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 issues raised in the petition filed by Dr Adrian Kamotho Njenga.

The decision allows Njenga’s petition and his application for conservatory orders to proceed to determination on their merits.

Njenga challenged a series of LSK resolutions and communications relating to a nationwide court boycott announced in July 2026 and a subsequent indefinite targeted boycott against specified judges and judicial officers.

According to the petition, the targeted boycott directed advocates to refrain from participating in proceedings before the affected judicial officers and instead seek adjournments, transfers or recusal in matters before them.

Njenga further alleged that the measures sought to restrict the judicial functions that the targeted officers could perform and threatened adverse action against advocates or judicial officers who failed to facilitate the boycott.

LSK had opposed the petition at the preliminary stage, arguing that Njenga had failed to exhaust the dispute resolution mechanisms provided under Regulations 95 and 96 of the Law Society of Kenya (General) Regulations, 2020.

The Society argued that the provisions provide mechanisms including negotiation, conciliation, mediation and arbitration for disputes involving LSK, its members and its governance functions.

LSK consequently maintained that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition before those mechanisms had been exhausted.

Justice Mburu, however, found that while exhaustion was a legitimate jurisdictional issue that could be raised through a preliminary objection, it did not bar the proceedings in the circumstances of the case.

The judge noted that the dispute went beyond an ordinary disagreement between an LSK member and the Society, observing that the petition raised issues affecting advocates, litigants, court users, judges and judicial officers.

“The Petition, as pleaded, does not merely concern the Petitioner’s individual rights as a member of the Law Society of Kenya,” the court stated.

Justice Mburu further held that the petition raised questions concerning judicial independence, administration of justice and constitutional rights, matters falling within the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction.

The judge said an arbitrator operating under Regulation 96 would not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutional questions raised by Njenga or grant the full range of constitutional remedies sought in the petition.

The court therefore found that Regulations 95 and 96 did not provide an adequate and effective mechanism for resolving the constitutional and public interest questions presented in the case.

Justice Mburu also rejected LSK’s argument that Njenga had improperly transformed an internal governance dispute into a constitutional case.

The judge held that the principle of constitutional avoidance, which requires courts to exercise restraint where appropriate, does not remove the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction.

The court said whether LSK’s actions amounted to internal policy decisions or exceeded its statutory mandate could not be conclusively determined at the preliminary stage without examining the substance and effect of the challenged resolutions and communications.

Justice Mburu similarly declined to strike out the petition on grounds of institutional autonomy or non-justiciability.

The judge also rejected LSK’s attempt to challenge Njenga’s application for conservatory orders through the preliminary objection.

He held that determining whether Njenga had established a prima facie case, demonstrated the likelihood of prejudice, shown that the petition could be rendered nugatory, and established that the public interest favoured interim relief would require examination of evidence and the exercise of judicial discretion.

Those matters, the court said, could not properly be determined through a preliminary objection founded on pure points of law.

The ruling does not determine whether LSK’s targeted boycott is constitutional or lawful.

Instead, the court directed that Njenga’s petition and application for conservatory orders proceed to determination on their respective merits.

Justice Mburu also found that Njenga had sufficient standing to institute the constitutional proceedings, noting that Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution provide broad standing for persons acting in the public interest.

The preliminary objection was consequently dismissed.

The substantive proceedings will now consider the legality and constitutionality of the challenged LSK measures, including questions relating to judicial independence, access to justice, legal representation and the Society’s statutory powers.