The High Court has set aside a judgment delivered in December 2025 after finding that pleadings in the case had been generated using artificial intelligence tools, raising serious concerns over fairness and the integrity of court processes.
In a ruling delivered on April 16, 2026, Justice J. Chigiti nullified the earlier decision in the case involving Nayan Mansukhlal Savla and the Commission on Administrative Justice, also known as the Office of the Ombudsman.
The court held that the use of AI or undisclosed digital tools in drafting pleadings, outside the framework of the Civil Procedure Rules, creates an uneven playing field in an adversarial system and undermines access to justice.
“The generation of pleadings through unknown tools or artificial intelligence gives an unfair advantage to the person drafting using such tools,” the court observed, warning that such practices amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Justice Chigiti further ruled that the pleadings, having been prepared using undisclosed AI tools, misled the court and could not form a valid basis for a lawful judgment.
“It does not matter how well the case is argued if the pleadings were illegally drafted,” the judge stated, adding that the resulting judgment could not stand.
As a result, the court set aside the judgment issued on December 23, 2025, along with all consequential orders, effectively reopening the matter for fresh consideration.
In a significant directive, the court also barred the ex parte applicant from filing any further pleadings generated through artificial intelligence unless a clear legal framework is established to govern such use.
The ruling highlighted that Kenya’s current legal framework, including the Civil Procedure Rules, does not recognise or regulate AI-assisted drafting of pleadings, creating uncertainty and potential for abuse.
While acknowledging the growing role of technology in legal practice, the court noted that artificial intelligence must be integrated within a defined legal and regulatory structure.
“Technology is a powerful tool when harnessed within a legal framework,” the court stated, calling on the Rules Committee to consider reforms that would formally incorporate AI and digital tools into judicial processes.
The applicant was also ordered to pay costs, with the court finding that the conduct surrounding the use of AI-generated pleadings contributed to the irregularity of the proceedings.
The decision marks a significant development in Kenya’s legal landscape, setting a precedent on the use of artificial intelligence in litigation and signalling stricter scrutiny of how pleadings are prepared and presented before court.
