The High Court has cautioned litigants against misusing artificial intelligence in legal practice, stressing that while digital tools can aid in drafting documents, all pleadings must strictly comply with established procedural standards.
In a ruling delivered at the Milimani High Court, Justice J. Chigiti addressed concerns arising from a case in which a self-represented litigant admitted to using digital tools, including AI-assisted research, to prepare a court submissions.
The litigant defended his approach, stating that he personally reviewed, edited and took full responsibility for all documents filed, maintaining that they combined no fabricated authorities or misleading quotations.
However, the opposing party questioned the credibility of the pleadings, alleging without presenting forensic evidence- that they may have been generated using artificial intelligence and were therefore unreliable.
In its determination, the court examined the requirements governing pleadings under Order 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, underscoring that all submissions- regardless of how they are prepared-must meet strict standards of form, clarity and substance.
- Harness power of AI positively to improve quality of work, but beware of challenges
- Generative AI is changing the legal profession, and future lawyers must learn how to use it
Justice Chigiti emphasised that those rules are essential in ensuring fairness and consistency within Kenya’s judicial system, noting that the adversarial process depends on properly structured pleading to enable courts to understand disputes and administer justice effectively.
The judge further warned that the use of emerging technologies does not excuse failure to comply with procedural requirements, adding that self- represented litigants are equally bound by the same standards as those represented by counsel.
“The duty to comply with the rules of drafting pleadings applies equally to all litigants.” the court observed, cautioning that allowing flexibility based on individual drafting methods or tools would undermine equality before the law.
At the same time, the court found no evidence to support claims that the litigant’s documents were improperly generated or contained false material, noting that such allegations must be substantiated with concrete proof, including forensic analysis or identification of inaccurate citations.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
