High Court halts LSK boycott against CJ Koome, targeted judges

LSK members led by president Charlse Kanjama match on the streets of Nairobi to protest against the death of advocates Edward Kariuki and Esther Wairimu.[Collins Oduor, Standard]

The High Court has issued interim conservatory orders suspending the Law Society of Kenya's (LSK) nationwide boycott against Chief Justice Martha Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and other targeted judges and judicial officers over allegations of gross misconduct and corruption.

In a brief ruling, Justice David Mburu of the Milimani High Court on Monday barred LSK from disrupting or interfering with court proceedings before the judges and judicial officers named in its communication dated July 20, 2026, or before any other judge or judicial officer across the country until the case is heard and determined.

"There be an interim conservatory order restraining LSK from disrupting and/or interfering with court proceedings before the judges and judicial officers mentioned in their communication dated July 20, 2026, or any other judge or judicial officerpending the hearing and determination of the application," Justice Mburu ordered.

While granting the conservatory orders, the judge observed that the court could not ignore the prevailing situation in the Judiciary, noting the complaints of intimidation and harassment directed at judges and magistrates following the boycott directive.

"The court does not operate in isolation. This court is alive to what has been going on," Justice Mburu said before adding that the interim orders were necessary to preserve order and the administration of justice pending the determination of the petition.

The orders come as a major reprieve for the Judiciary after efforts by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to resolve the dispute through negotiations failed to yield a settlement or secure the withdrawal of the boycott.

Justice Mburu had on Friday declined to issue interim orders after learning that Chief Justice Koome and the LSK leadership led by President Charles Kanjama were engaged in talks aimed at resolving the impasse.

He instead directed the parties to return to court on today, Monday for further directions.

 However, with the negotiations failing to produce a breakthrough, the court proceeded to determine the application for conservatory orders.

Advocate Adrian Kamotho urged the court to issue conservatory orders arguing that the boycott had disrupted court operations, threatened judicial independence and unfairly punished litigants seeking justice.

He maintained that advocates who chose to appear before the targeted judges risked disciplinary action from their own professional body while innocent litigants were being denied access to justice.

"The rest of the advocates, except council members who receive allowances, have to struggle on a daily basis and appear in court. Between now and the hearing of this matter, advocates will be prejudiced because our families will go hungry," Kamotho submitted.

 In the petition lawyer Kamotho is challenging the legality and constitutionality of the boycott announced by LSK through statements and operational guidelines issued on July 17, July 20 and July 22.

Several judicial officers joined the proceedings as interested parties, including Court of Appeal Judge Sankale Ole Kantai, High Court Judge Lucas Naikuni, Kibera Chief Magistrate Stella Atambo and the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA), all of whom supported the application for conservatory orders.

Through its lawyer Kiragu Wathuta, KMJA told the court that judges and magistrates across the country had been subjected to intimidation and uncertainty following the boycott.

"Members of the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association are being harassed without even being given a proper reason. Judges and magistrates are working in fear because they do not know whether, if they issue an order, their door will be visited next," Wathuta submitted.

He added that judicial officers in stations including Nakuru and Chuka had already faced harassment, arguing that the boycott had created an atmosphere of fear within the Judiciary.

Senior counsel Danstan Omari, appearing for Justice Naikuni and Magistrate Atambo, also backed the application Kamotho, insisting that the boycott had already disrupted court operations despite LSK's assertions to the contrary.

"It is not true that judicial proceedings have not been interrupted. A High Court proceeding in Murang'a was interrupted. A Supreme Court sitting presided over by the Chief Justice was interrupted on Wednesday last week. The consumers of justice are the 55 million Kenyans who depend on the courts," Omari argued.

LSK, however, opposed the application through its President Charles Kanjama and counsel Wyckliffe Oyoo.

Kanjama maintained that the court must first determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute before issuing any substantive orders.

"My objection is based on jurisdiction and should be handled first before anything else. The court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to deal with this matter before it can issue any substantive orders," Kanjama submitted.

He also defended his continued representation of LSK after objections were raised by some parties over conflict of interest

"The LSK is comfortable with the current representation by myself. If they have an issue with myself or my law firm, they should file a formal application," he said.

Justice Mburu agreed that the preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction should be heard first and directed all parties to file written submissions within specified timelines.

The judge ordered LSK to file and serve its submissions on the preliminary objection within seven days, after which the petitioners and interested parties will have seven days to respond.

 LSK will then be at liberty to file supplementary submissions before the court delivers its ruling on the preliminary objection on September 17, 2026.