Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association President Justice Peter Mulwa/HANDOUT
The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) has appealed to the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to reconsider its proposed nationwide and targeted boycott of court proceedings.
The association warned that the greatest victims of such action would be litigants seeking justice.
In a statement signed by KMJA President Justice Peter Mulwa, the association acknowledged the concerns raised by the LSK over judicial accountability, delays, registry inefficiencies and case management, but insisted that dialogue, not disruption of court proceedings, offered the best path to resolving the issues.
The statement follows the LSK's communication issued on July 17 and its further guidance released on July 20 outlining a proposed boycott of court proceedings as part of its push for reforms within the Judiciary.
"The association has taken note of the statement issued by the Law Society of Kenya on 17th July 2026, and the Further Guidance issued on 20th July 2026, on judicial accountability, the administration of justice and the proposed nationwide and targeted boycott of court proceedings," Mulwa said.
He noted that KMJA respected the LSK’s role as a key partner in the administration of justice and shared its commitment to promoting integrity, professionalism, transparency and efficiency within the Judiciary.
"The association does not take lightly the concerns its members have raised regarding delays, registry inefficiencies, case management and judicial accountability. These are concerns that the Judiciary itself has acknowledged and is actively working to address," the statement said.
However, the association urged the lawyers' body to abandon the planned boycott, saying withdrawing legal services from courts would ultimately hurt ordinary Kenyans.
"It is precisely because we take these concerns
seriously that we respectfully urge the LSK to reconsider a boycott, whether
general or targeted. A withdrawal from court proceedings does not fall on the
institution alone; its immediate and heaviest cost is borne by litigants,"
Justice Mulwa said.
"We would ask that this cost weigh heavily in the Society's deliberations, as we know it already does for many of its members."
KMJA also expressed concern over the targeted nature of the proposed boycott, noting that some of the judicial officers listed by the LSK, including Supreme Court judges, are currently parties to matters before courts.
The association argued that directing advocates not to appear before judges who have exercised their constitutional right to seek legal redress could be perceived as an attempt to influence ongoing cases.
On allegations of corruption and misconduct, KMJA reiterated its zero-tolerance stance, saying all credible complaints should be investigated promptly and impartially.
The association encouraged the LSK to submit evidence-backed complaints through established institutions, including the Judicial Service Commission and the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman, instead of publicly naming judicial officers before formal investigations are undertaken.
KMJA also acknowledged that case backlog remains a significant concern but said delays are caused by multiple factors that require collective solutions rather than the suspension of court proceedings.
It cited ongoing reforms, including active case management, digitisation of court processes, automation of registries, expansion of alternative dispute resolution and continuous performance monitoring as measures already being implemented to improve efficiency.
