In a landmark decision that highlights the tension between rapid technological advancement and traditional legal frameworks, the High Court of Kenya has set aside a prior judgment on the grounds that the legal pleadings were generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI).
The ruling, delivered by Hon. Justice John Chigiti (SC) in April 2026, serves as a stern warning to litigants and legal practitioners: until Parliament establishes a formal legislative framework, AI has no standing in Kenyan courtrooms.
The matter arose in the case of Nayan Mansukhlal Savla vs. The Commission on Administrative Justice (Case No. HCJRMISC/E120/2025). The High Court took the drastic step of nullifying a judgment delivered on December 23, 2025, after it was revealed that the foundational documents—the pleadings—were the product of AI tools rather than human legal drafting.
The court’s decision rested on several key legal pillars:
- Violation of Civil Procedure: The court noted that the drafting of pleadings is strictly regulated by Order 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Because these rules do not currently authorize AI-generated content, such documents are considered procedurally deficient.
- The Unfair Advantage Doctrine: Justice Chigiti argued that using AI provides an unfair advantag” to one party, which undermines the adversarial nature of the Kenyan legal system.
- Constitutional Concerns: The ruling described the use of AI as an affront to access to justice as guaranteed under Article 48 of the Constitution, suggesting that the integrity of the process is compromised when unknown tools are used to influence judicial outcomes.
While Justice Chigiti acknowledged that technology is a powerful tool for socio-economic growth, he emphasized that it cannot operate in a legal vacuum. “Once the legislators come up with an appropriate legislative framework, then artificial intelligence will form part of our Laws,” the ruling stated.
The court has formally invited the Rules Committee to consider amending the Civil Procedure Rules to eventually accommodate AI through public participation, but made it clear that judges cannot jump the gun before the law is written.
The High Court’s stance mirrors a growing consensus within Kenyan institutions regarding the limitations of machine-generated output. This ruling follows a similar trend set by the Copyright Tribunal, which recently declined to recognize or protect works produced by AI, maintaining that intellectual and legal protections are reserved for human-authored creations.
The order
As a result of these findings, the court issued the following orders:
- The Judgment delivered on December 23, 2025, is set aside in its entirety.
- The application associated with the AI-drafted pleadings was struck out with costs to be paid by the applicant.