NAIROBI, Kenya — The High Court has cautioned litigants against the improper use of artificial intelligence in preparing court documents, underscoring that technology cannot override established legal standards governing pleadings.
In a ruling delivered at the Milimani High Court, Justice John Chigiti addressed a dispute in which a self-represented litigant admitted to using digital tools, including AI-assisted research, in drafting pleadings.
The litigant told the court that he had personally reviewed and adopted all filed documents, insisting he bore full responsibility for their content and accuracy. He denied allegations of using fabricated authorities or false citations.
The opposing party had challenged the pleadings, claiming they were generated using artificial intelligence and were therefore unreliable. However, the court noted that no forensic evidence was presented to substantiate those claims.
In its determination, the court relied on Civil Procedure Rules, particularly Order 2, which sets out strict requirements on the form, clarity, and substance of pleadings.
Justice Chigiti emphasised that these rules are central to Kenya’s adversarial legal system, ensuring fairness, uniformity, and clarity in the presentation of disputes before the court.
“The duty to comply with the rules of drafting pleadings applies equally to all litigants,” the court held, warning that allowing different standards based on the tools used would undermine equality in the justice system.
The judge added that while AI and other digital tools may assist in legal drafting, they do not excuse non-compliance with procedural requirements. Self-represented litigants, he noted, are equally bound by these standards as advocates.
Significantly, the court found no evidence to support allegations that the pleadings were improperly generated using artificial intelligence, stressing that such claims must be backed by concrete proof, including identification of false citations or expert forensic analysis.
The ruling comes amid growing use of AI tools in legal practice globally, raising questions about reliability, accountability, and ethical standards in litigation.
Legal analysts say the ruling sets an important precedent by clarifying that while technology may enhance efficiency, it cannot replace professional judgment or adherence to procedural law.
As courts increasingly encounter AI-assisted filings, the decision signals a cautious but firm approach—embracing innovation while safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.
