The petition, filed under a certificate of urgency by advocate Dr. Adrian Kamotho, seeks conservatory orders stopping the implementation of the LSK’s resolutions and communications issued between July 17 and July 22, 2026, pending the hearing and determination of the case.
In the application, Kamotho argues that the boycott has placed advocates in an impossible position by forcing them to choose between complying with the Law Society’s directives and fulfilling their professional obligations to clients and the courts.
“The continued implementation of the boycott will occasion adjournments, delay, additional expense, disruption of part-heard proceedings and possible loss of liberty, property, evidence and interim protection,” the court papers state.
The petitioner wants the High Court to bar the Law Society from directing advocates to refrain from appearing before judges listed in the boycott, seeking adjournments or transfers of cases solely because a judicial officer has been targeted, or taking disciplinary action against advocates who decline to participate in the boycott.
The petition further seeks orders restraining the Society from threatening or recommending adverse action against judges and judicial officers who continue handling matters despite the boycott.
According to the court documents, the nationwide boycott took place on July 22, while the targeted boycott against specific judges commenced on July 23 and remains in force indefinitely.
Kamotho contends that the LSK has no legal mandate under the Law Society of Kenya Act or the Advocates Act to compel advocates to withdraw legal representation, dictate which judges should hear cases or determine the judicial functions that judges may undertake.
“The targeted boycott constitutes a prima facie interference with judicial authority and decisional independence contrary to Articles 159 and 160 of the Constitution,” the petition states.
The application further argues that the boycott threatens litigants’ constitutional rights to equality before the law, access to justice and a fair hearing, particularly in criminal and other time sensitive matter
“The boycott threatens litigants’ rights to equality before the law, access to justice and a fair hearing under Articles 27, 48 and 50 of the Constitution,” the petitioner argues.
The petition also raises broader constitutional questions, including whether the Law Society can lawfully compel advocates to withhold professional services, prescribe the judicial functions judges may undertake and institute an indefinite boycott against individual judges without following the procedures established in law.
Kamotho further argues that the dispute transcends an internal disagreement within the Law Society because it directly affects litigants, advocates, judges, judicial officers and the administration of justice.
“These questions concern the independence of the Judiciary, the proper constitutional limits of the powers of a statutory professional body, the professional obligations of advocates and the immediate rights of litigants and court users,” the petition states.
The petitioner maintains that public interest favours uninterrupted court proceedings, continued legal representation and obedience to court orders, adding that the interim orders sought would not prevent the Law Society from pursuing judicial accountability through lawful constitutional and statutory mechanisms.
