Court's rejection of AI filings divides lawyers
Crime and Justice
By
Kamau Muthoni
| Apr 21, 2026
Debate erupts after court rejects AI-drafted filings in landmark ruling. [File Courtesy]
A High Court decision to set aside a judgment after discovering that a litigant had used artificial intelligence (AI) to draft court documents has sparked debate on the role of the technology in legal proceedings.
High Court Judge John Chigiti reversed his earlier judgment in a case filed by Nayan Mansukhlal Savla, who had sued the Commission on Administrative Justice (the Ombudsman), after it emerged that the litigant had used AI tools in preparing his pleadings.
Justice Chigiti said Civil Procedure Rules require uniformity in drafting, adding that both lay litigants and advocates must adhere to consistent standards. He warned that attempts to “spice up” pleadings could create confusion and hinder judicial determination of cases. “The fact that the applicant acts in person does not give him leverage or permission to adopt unique drafting tools, structures and methodologies exclusively available to him,” he said, adding, “All litigants must be placed on an equal footing unless otherwise permitted by the court. Such personalised drafting methods are deplorable.”
However, lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi disagreed with the ruling, criticising it as restrictive and outdated. He argued that the use of AI should not matter in legal drafting. “What an absurd decision. Does it matter whether one drafts pleadings using AI tools or uses a typewriter? It is none of the court’s business,” he posted on X.
READ MORE
Apple's Tim Cook to step down as CEO after 15-year run
Governor demands accountability from Browns Plantation over Sh1b Fund
New branches, AI adoption as Mhasibu targets 100,000 membership
African chefs shine at continental culinary competition
CEOs urge State relief package as Iran war drives up firms' costs
Bolt fights back against Kenya's crackdown on ride-hailing apps
National Oil goes missing in action amid another crippling fuel crisis
Are family businesses wasting their natural advantages?
Lawyer Miguna Miguna supported the judge’s position, comparing AI-assisted drafting to academic ghostwriting. He said legal practitioners must personally take responsibility for submissions filed in court and questioned the reliability of AI-generated material. He also argued that access to advanced AI tools is unequal and could create unfair advantages in litigation.
Technological advancement
Justice Chigiti, however, said the court must not ignore technological advancement and urged the rules committee to consider reforms to accommodate AI use in future. “Technology is a powerful socio-economic tool when harnessed within a legal framework,” he said. “Once appropriate legislation is enacted, artificial intelligence will form part of our laws.”
He added that the issue in the case was not AI itself, but the fact that the litigant misled the court into believing the pleadings were independently generated. “The court was misled into embracing machine-generated pleadings, and a judgment flowing from such a process cannot stand. It must be set aside, which I hereby do,” he ruled.
The ruling comes amid growing judicial scrutiny of AI use in legal filings. Courts have increasingly flagged concerns over fabricated citations, altered records, and unreliable AI-generated content.
On July 28, 2025, Justice Kizito Magare dismissed a case after finding that legal citations provided by counsel were fictitious, warning against reliance on AI in research and drafting. “It is not edifying for counsel to cite fictitious decisions, mostly generated from AI,” he said.
In another case, Justice Bahati Mwamuye struck out a suit after questioning the authenticity of AI-generated documents, stating that computer-generated outputs cannot replace human-drawn pleadings.
Meanwhile, Justice Alexander Muteti has also warned that the rise of digital manipulation, including deepfakes, makes the authenticity of electronic evidence increasingly critical in modern litigation.