NAIROBI, Kenya Apr 20 – The High Court has cautioned on the use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings, making it clear that technology cannot replace compliance with established court rules.
In a ruling delivered at the Milimani Law Courts, Justice J. Chigiti addressed a dispute in which a self-represented litigant acknowledged relying on digital tools, including AI-assisted research, to prepare pleadings.
The litigant defended his filings, stating that he personally reviewed and verified all content before submitting it to court, and insisted that the documents contained no fabricated authorities or misleading citations.
His opponent, however, questioned the integrity of the pleadings, alleging they were generated using artificial intelligence and therefore unreliable—claims that were not supported with technical or forensic evidence.
In resolving the matter, the court turned to the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly Order 2, emphasizing that pleadings must meet strict legal thresholds in structure, clarity, and substance—regardless of whether they are drafted manually or with the aid of technology.
Justice Chigiti stressed that uniform compliance with these rules is central to fairness in Kenya’s adversarial justice system, ensuring that all parties present their cases on equal terms and that courts can properly interpret disputes.
He warned that while AI tools may assist litigants, they do not excuse procedural lapses or justify unconventional drafting styles that could compromise the integrity of the process. The judge further underscored that self-represented parties are bound by the same standards as legal professionals.
The court noted that adherence to pleading rules is a universal obligation, and allowing exceptions based on drafting methods would undermine equality before the law.
At the same time, the court dismissed allegations that the documents in question were improperly generated using AI, pointing out that such claims must be backed by verifiable evidence, including proof of fabricated citations or forensic analysis.
The ruling highlights the judiciary’s growing engagement with emerging technologies, while reaffirming that accountability and strict adherence to legal standards remain paramount in court proceedings.