Lawyer seeks to block Nelson Havi from posting court matters on social media
By Zipporah Ngwatu, November 14, 2025Lawyer James Ochieng’ Oduol is seeking court orders blocking the former President of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), Nelson Havi, from posting ongoing court matters on social media pending the hearing and determinations of seven petitions against the Supreme Court Judges.
Appearing before a three-judge bench on Friday, November 14, 2025, lawyer Oduol told the court that lawyer Havi is interfering with judicial processes by litigating ongoing matters on social media.
Through an oral application, Oduol urged the court to issue a conservatory order barring Havi, who is the first petitioner in the ongoing matter, from further posting about the matter on social media platforms.
Further, he noted that lawyer Havi’s practice on the socials ought to stop because it is becoming a point of concern.
“My lords, it has been a habit that matters are being litigated in social media, thus interfering with the court process, and therefore I seek that this honourable court be pleased to grant an order that pending the hearing and determination of these particular petitions, no party will be allowed to either air views on the matter on social media or scandalise the petitioners as distinguished judges of the Supreme Court,” lawyer Oduol submitted to court.
“Judicial processes are judicial authority vested in the court under the constitution and nowhere else. So, to assume a stance where social media is a substitute for the judicial process is something that should be highly discouraged, I humbly submit,” lawyer Oduol told the court.
File formal application
However, the three-judge bench comprising presiding judge Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye did not grant the orders but directed Oduol to file a formal application.
On July 4, 2025, the same bench advised Havi to avoid sideshows in court, stating that the court is a place to seek justice and all advocates should ensure that they do not bring the sideshows.
The advice came after a disagreement ensued towards the end of the court session on the dates that had been set to hear his new application for recusal of the judges from the same matter, leading to Havi making remarks which did not sit well with his fellow advocates.
Havi argued that the set date is too far, stating that the said matter is filed as urgent.
“This is a matter concerning judges of the Supreme Court; it is prioritised as urgent. What can be more urgent to this court?” Lawyer Havi asked the bench.