A fresh High Court ruling has escalated the ongoing debate over the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Kenya’s courts, after a judge set aside a judgment upon discovering that a litigant had relied on the technology to prepare pleadings.
Justice John Chigiti reversed his earlier decision in a case filed by Nayan Mansukhlal Savla against the Commission on Administrative Justice, ruling that the court had been misled into adopting machine-generated documents.
“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 decision builds on growing judicial scrutiny over AI use in legal proceedings, with courts increasingly warning against unreliable or improperly presented digital content.
Justice Chigiti stressed that all litigants, including those representing themselves, must adhere to uniform standards of drafting as required under civil procedure rules. He cautioned that unconventional approaches could undermine clarity and fairness in the justice system.
“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.”
Even so, the judge acknowledged that technology cannot be ignored, calling for reforms to integrate AI within a regulated legal framework.
“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.”
The ruling has drawn divided reactions from legal experts. Senior lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi criticised the decision as outdated, arguing that the method used to draft pleadings should not matter.
“What an absurd decision. Does it matter whether one drafts pleadings using Al tools or uses a typewriter? It is none of the court’s business,” he posted on X.
In contrast, lawyer Miguna Miguna supported the court’s position, likening AI-assisted drafting to ghostwriting and questioning the reliability of such material. He also raised concerns about unequal access to advanced AI tools, warning that it could create an uneven playing field in litigation.
The latest development adds to a series of rulings highlighting risks linked to AI in the legal field. In July 2025, Justice Kizito Magare dismissed a case after finding that cited authorities were fictitious, warning: “It is not edifying for counsel to cite fictitious decisions, mostly generated from Al.” Similarly, Justice Bahati Mwamuye struck out a suit over concerns about the authenticity of AI-generated documents, emphasising that automated outputs cannot replace properly prepared pleadings.
Justice Alexander Muteti has also cautioned that the rise of digital manipulation, including deepfakes, presents new challenges in verifying electronic evidence in court.
Together, these developments point to a judiciary navigating the tension between embracing innovation and preserving the integrity of legal processes, as artificial intelligence continues to reshape professional practice.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
