The High Court has cautioned litigants against improper use of Artificial Intelligence in preparing court documents, warning that technology does not override strict legal requirements.
In a ruling delivered at the Milimani High Court, Justice John Chigiti addressed a dispute where a self-represented litigant admitted using digital tools, including AI-assisted research, to draft pleadings.
The litigant told the court he personally reviewed and adopted all documents filed, maintaining that he remained fully responsible for their accuracy. He denied using fabricated authorities or false quotations.
The opposing party had challenged the pleadings, alleging they were generated using artificial intelligence and were therefore unreliable, but failed to provide any forensic evidence.
In its determination, the court relied on Order 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, emphasizing that all pleadings must meet strict standards on form, clarity and substance, regardless of how they are prepared.
Justice Chigiti said the rules are meant to ensure fairness and uniformity, noting that Kenya’s adversarial system depends on properly structured pleadings to enable courts to understand disputes and deliver justice.
The judge warned that while AI and other digital tools may assist in drafting, they do not excuse non-compliance with procedural rules. He added that self-represented litigants are equally bound by these standards.
“The duty to comply with the rules of drafting pleadings applies equally to all litigants,” the court said, cautioning that allowing different standards based on tools used would undermine equality in the justice system.
At the same time, the court found no evidence to support claims that the pleadings were improperly generated using artificial intelligenceimproperly generated using artificial intelligence, noting that such allegations must be backed by concrete proof, including identification of false citations or forensic analysis.
