NAIROBI, Kenya, Aug 3 – The High Court has issued interim orders stopping the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) from disrupting court proceedings before judges and judicial officers pending the determination of a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter.
In his ruling, Justice David Mburu said he had considered the affidavits filed by all parties and was also aware of the events that had been unfolding. He stated that the interim orders were necessary to restore order within the Judiciary and ensure court operations continue without interference while the matter is being determined.
The court further restrained the LSK from taking any action that would disrupt court proceedings before judges and judicial officers until the preliminary objection is heard and determined.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC), through its lawyer, told the court that judges and magistrates had been carrying out their duties under fear.
The case was filed by advocate Adrima Kamotho, who challenged the LSK’s actions in disrupting court operations. Lawyers Danstan Omari and Peter Wanyama, appearing for the judges, also criticized the LSK’s directive urging advocates to boycott appearances before certain judges.
The court orders come amid an ongoing standoff between the Law Society of Kenya and the Judiciary following the society’s decision to launch a targeted boycott of several judges and judicial officers. The boycott, announced through a series of statements and operational guidelines issued in July, was aimed at Chief Justice Martha Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and a number of other judicial officers over concerns raised by the legal profession regarding the administration of justice.
The dispute prompted lawyer Adrima Kamotho to move to court, arguing that the boycott undermines judicial independence, threatens access to justice and risks delaying the hearing and determination of cases affecting thousands of litigants across the country.
During previous proceedings, the High Court initially declined to suspend the boycott and instead allowed parties time to engage in discussions after being informed that a meeting between the Judicial Service Commission and LSK leadership was underway in an attempt to resolve the impasse. Justice David Mburu directed the parties to continue filing their responses while awaiting the outcome of the talks.
The Judicial Service Commission has maintained that the boycott has created anxiety within the Judiciary and interfered with the delivery of justice, while lawyers supporting the petition told the court that proceedings had been disrupted in several courts, including the Supreme Court and courts in Murang’a. LSK, however, has argued that court operations have largely continued and opposed efforts to halt the boycott before the substantive petition is heard.
The case is being closely watched by legal practitioners and court users as it raises broader questions about the relationship between the Bench and the Bar, judicial accountability and the right of advocates to protest against perceived misconduct within the justice system.
Justice Mburu directed that the interim orders remain in force pending the hearing and determination of the preliminary objection on jurisdiction, setting the stage for a legal battle that could determine the limits of professional boycotts by advocates and their impact on the administration of justice in Kenya.
