NAIROBI,Kenya Sep 18 -The High Court has cleared the way for a constitutional challenge to the Law Society of Kenya’s (LSK) targeted boycott of selected judges and judicial officers after dismissing the Society’s bid to have the case struck out at the preliminary stage.Justice David Mburu on Thursday dismissed LSK’s preliminary objection, ruling that a petition filed by lawyer Dr Adrian Kamotho Njenga raises constitutional questions that cannot adequately be resolved through the Society’s internal dispute-resolution mechanisms.The judge directed that the petition and a Notice of Motion dated July 24, 2026 proceed to determination on their respective merits.The case stems from a series of LSK resolutions and communications issued in July, including a nationwide court boycott on July 22 and an indefinite targeted boycott of courts presided over by specified judges and judicial officers.LSK announced the boycott citing concerns over judicial accountability, alleged misconduct, delays in the administration of justice and other challenges affecting the legal profession and court users.The Society said its targeted action would focus on judges and judicial officers who, according to LSK, had obtained court orders preventing the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) or the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) from processing complaints against them.Under the boycott guidelines, advocates appearing before the targeted judicial officers were directed to seek adjournments, transfers of cases or recusal. LSK also said affected judges should only deliver pending rulings and judgments and should not preside over fresh hearings while the issues surrounding the disciplinary processes remained unresolved.Kamotho moved to the High Court challenging the legality and constitutionality of the measures, arguing that the boycott threatened access to justice, legal representation and judicial independence.He also challenged the directives on the basis that they could interfere with the ability of judges and judicial officers to discharge their constitutional functions.LSK opposed the petition through a preliminary objection, arguing that Kamotho should first have exhausted the dispute-resolution mechanisms provided under Regulations 95 and 96 of the Law Society of Kenya (General) Regulations, 2020.The Society argued that the provisions provide mechanisms including negotiation, conciliation, mediation and arbitration for disputes involving the Society, its members and its governance functions.LSK therefore maintained that the High Court had been moved prematurely and lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition before those mechanisms were exhausted.The judge found that the dispute, as pleaded, went beyond an ordinary disagreement between LSK and one of its members because it raised questions affecting advocates, litigants, judges, judicial officers and other court users.The court held that the petition raises questions requiring interpretation of the Constitution and determination of whether constitutional rights and freedoms had been violated, denied, infringed or threatened.The judge consequently found that the matter falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 165 of the Constitution.Justice Mburu further held that an arbitrator operating under Regulation 96 would not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutional questions raised in the petition or grant the full range of constitutional remedies sought.He therefore found that the doctrine of exhaustion did not bar Kamotho from approaching the High Court.The judge also noted that the petition involved parties beyond LSK and its membership, including judges, judicial officers and the JSC, further distinguishing it from a purely internal dispute.LSK had also argued that the petition improperly transformed what was essentially an internal governance matter into a constitutional dispute.Justice Mburu rejected that argument at the preliminary stage, holding that the court could not determine that the dispute was merely an internal policy disagreement without examining the substance and effect of the resolutions and communications under challenge.The judge similarly declined to strike out the case on grounds of institutional autonomy and non-justiciability.He said the constitutional issues raised in the petition could not be conclusively determined without considering the merits of the dispute.The court also declined to determine Kamotho’s request for conservatory orders through the preliminary objection.Justice Mburu said questions such as whether the petitioner had established a prima facie case, demonstrated prejudice, shown that the petition could be rendered nugatory or established that the public interest favoured interim relief would require consideration of evidence and the exercise of judicial discretion.Those matters, the judge held, could not properly be determined through a preliminary objection confined to pure points of law.The latest ruling follows interim orders issued by Justice Mburu on August 3, when the court restrained LSK from disrupting or interfering with proceedings before judges and judicial officers named in its July 20 communication, as well as before other judges and judicial officers.The orders were issued as the court considered LSK’s preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction to hear Kamotho’s petition.The orders were initially to remain in force pending the determination of the preliminary objection.Following Thursday’s ruling, the court extended the interim protection to Friday morning as parties prepared to address the pending application and the substantive petition.Kamotho’s lawyers subsequently sought expansion of the interim protections, arguing that the circumstances had changed after the court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.Counsel argued that the earlier orders had been issued when jurisdiction was still contested and should therefore be broadened to protect judges, magistrates, the JSC, litigants and members of the public.LSK opposed the request, arguing that there had been no demonstrated change in circumstances warranting variation of the existing orders.The court is yet to make a final determination on the legality or constitutionality of the boycott.The dismissal of the preliminary objection therefore does not mean that LSK’s targeted boycott has been declared unlawful. Instead, it allows the substantive constitutional questions raised by Kamotho to proceed for determination.The eventual hearing will consider, among other issues, whether LSK acted within its statutory mandate, the effect of its boycott directives on access to justice and legal representation, and the constitutional implications of directing advocates to avoid proceedings before specified judicial officers.Background to the boycottLSK announced its nationwide boycott in July, saying it was responding to what it described as persistent challenges in the administration of justice.Among the concerns cited by the Society were alleged judicial misconduct and corruption, delays in the hearing and determination of cases, registry inefficiencies, problems with e-filing systems, case-management challenges and concerns about the handling of complaints against judicial officers.The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA), however, opposed the proposed action, warning that a boycott could hurt litigants and worsen case backlogs.The Judicial Service Commission also cautioned against disruption of court proceedings while acknowledging concerns raised by the legal profession over accountability and efficiency within the justice system.With the preliminary objection now dismissed, the dispute will move to the substantive stage, where the High Court will determine the constitutional and legal questions raised by the targeted boycott.