The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has clarified that its nationwide and targeted boycott resolutions remain in force despite a High Court ruling directing that a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction be heard before the substantive petition filed against the society.
In a notice issued on Monday, August 3, LSK said the High Court at Nairobi declined to stop the boycott measures and instead directed that the society’s preliminary objection be determined first in the case filed by Dr Adrian Kamotho Njenga.
The society said the objection raises, among other issues, whether the petitioner ought to exhaust dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the Law Society of Kenya Act and Regulations before moving to court.
“The boycott resolutions and measures remain in force pending the hearing and determination of the issues in the petition,” the society said in the notice.
LSK further noted that the court did not suspend, stay, terminate or otherwise stop its nationwide and targeted boycott resolutions issued in July.
LSK Boycott Challenge
The clarification follows proceedings in Nairobi High Court Constitutional and Human Rights Petition E501 of 2026 in which Kamotho is challenging the legality of the society’s boycott campaign against selected judges and judicial officers.
Kamotho moved to court seeking conservatory orders to suspend resolutions and communications issued by the LSK between July 17 and July 22, arguing that the boycott was unconstitutional, undermined judicial independence and threatened access to justice.
Also Read: High Court Gives Thousands of Kenyans Fresh Hope in Historical Land Injustice Claims
Kamotho argued that the boycott places advocates in an impossible position by forcing them to choose between complying with LSK directives and fulfilling their professional obligations to clients and the courts.
The petitioner argues that by directing advocates not to appear before certain judges, the society risks interfering with the constitutional mandate of courts and creating uncertainty for litigants whose matters are pending before the affected judicial officers.
He further argued that the action could lead to delays, adjournments and disruption of court proceedings.
LSK strongly opposed the petition.
According to the society, the dispute should first be handled through mechanisms established under the Law Society of Kenya Act and related regulations before being presented before the courts.
Under the targeted boycott guidelines issued by LSK, advocates were directed not to participate in fresh hearings, part-heard matters or new applications before judges and judicial officers named by the society.
Also Read: Collapsed United Insurance Gives Creditors Deadline to Lodge Claims as Company Winds Up
Lawyers were also asked to seek adjournments, transfers or recusals of matters assigned to the affected judicial officers.
Court’s Direction
In its notice, LSK said the High Court agreed that the preliminary objection should be heard and determined before consideration of the substantive petition.
The society stated that the objection questions whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter before the petitioner exhausts existing dispute resolution procedures available under the law governing the society.
The court also directed parties to file and exchange submissions on the objection and indicated that a ruling will be delivered on September 17, 2026.
While directing that there should be no disruption or interruption of court proceedings pending the ruling, the court stopped short of suspending the boycott resolutions themselves, a distinction that LSK highlighted in its communication to members.
The outcome of the preliminary objection could prove pivotal because it will determine whether the court can proceed to hear the substantive challenge against the boycott or whether the dispute must first be resolved through internal mechanisms provided under the law.
Until then, LSK maintains that its boycott resolutions remain valid and enforceable, setting the stage for a continued standoff between the lawyers’ body and sections of the Judiciary as the legal battle heads toward the next court date on September 17.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
