NAIROBI, Kenya, July 21 – The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) has urged the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to reconsider its planned nationwide court boycott, warning that withdrawing legal services would ultimately punish litigants rather than the Judiciary.
The appeal comes a day after the Judiciary rejected the planned boycott, insisting that all courts will remain open as scheduled on Wednesday and urging advocates to pursue their grievances through dialogue and established constitutional mechanisms instead of disrupting court proceedings.
Judiciary rejects LSK boycott, says all courts will sit as scheduled on Wednesday
In a statement issued Tuesday, KMJA President Justice Peter Mulwa acknowledged concerns raised by advocates over court delays, registry inefficiencies, e-filing challenges and judicial accountability, but argued that a boycott would undermine access to justice instead of resolving the underlying problems.
“The concerns raised by the Law Society of Kenya are serious and deserve attention,” Mulwa said. “However, a withdrawal from court proceedings does not fall on the institution alone; its immediate and heaviest cost is borne by litigants.”
In its call for a one-day nationwide boycott, LSK asked advocates to stay away from court hearings and applications in protest over what it describes as persistent failures in the administration of justice, including delays in the hearing and determination of cases, registry inefficiencies and concerns over judicial accountability.
While lawyers will continue filing documents and attending urgent mentions solely to obtain fresh hearing dates or extend interim orders, the Society has also announced an indefinite targeted boycott of specific judges and judicial officers.
The targeted action affects judicial officers, including some Supreme Court judges.
KMJA however expressed concern over the move noting the targeted judges had obtained court orders restraining the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) or the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) from proceeding with misconduct complaints against them.
LSK advised advocates appearing before the affected courts to seek adjournments, transfers or recusals.
Justice Mulwa cautioned that the targeted boycott raises broader constitutional concerns.
“Directing advocates not to appear before a judicial officer because that officer has approached a court as any litigant is constitutionally entitled to do risks being interpreted as an attempt to influence the outcome of pending proceedings and sits uneasily with Article 160(1) of the Constitution,” he said.
The association also rejected suggestions that allegations of corruption or misconduct should be pursued through public naming campaigns, reiterating that judicial accountability must be enforced through established constitutional mechanisms.
KMJA said credible complaints should instead be lodged with the Judicial Service Commission and the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman, warning that publicly naming judicial officers before investigations are concluded risks undermining due process.
On concerns over case backlogs, the association said reducing delays requires coordinated action across the justice sector—including the Judiciary, advocates, prosecutors, investigators and other agencies—rather than unilateral action by one stakeholder.
It noted that the Judiciary continues to implement reforms aimed at improving efficiency, including active case management, registry automation and wider use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), but said lasting progress depends on collaboration rather than actions that disrupt court operations.
The association also addressed the Judiciary’s plan to publish individual judicial performance reports, saying it supports greater transparency but has asked Chief Justice Martha Koome to sequence their publication alongside completion of the ongoing Case Weighting Study and digitisation reforms to ensure the data accurately reflects judicial workloads.
Justice Mulwa said the request should not be interpreted as opposition to accountability but as an effort to ensure the performance reports are fair and credible.
As a way forward, KMJA proposed structured engagement through the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ), Court Users Committees and a dedicated Bar-Bench dialogue to resolve the issues raised by advocates.
The association urged the LSK to remain engaged in court proceedings while discussions continue, saying the constitutional rights of litigants should remain paramount and should not become collateral damage in efforts to reform the justice system.
