By Andrew Kariuki

A High Court judgment, in a judicial review case involving the Commission on Administrative Justice, has been set aside after the court found that pleadings relied on artificial intelligence tools not, recognised under Kenyan law.

In a ruling delivered on April 16, 2026, Justice J. Chigiti overturned the December 23, 2025 decision in the case of Nayan Mansukhlal Savla vs the Commission on Administrative Justice, citing fundamental concerns over how the pleadings were prepared.

The court held that the use of undisclosed AI tools in drafting legal documents compromises fairness in an adversarial system and risks distorting the administration of justice.

According to the ruling, allowing such tools without a legal framework gives one party an undue procedural advantage over the other.

“Drafting pleadings using artificial intelligence tools not provided for in law gives such a user an unfair advantage,” the court stated, warning that this undermines equal access to justice.

The matter originated from an application by the Commission on Administrative Justice seeking to set aside the earlier judgment, arguing that it had not been afforded an opportunity to respond due to confusion arising from multiple filings and alleged non-service of an amended motion.

The Commission maintained that it had substantive issues to raise and that the judgment had been entered before it could properly participate in the proceedings.

However, the respondent opposed the application, insisting that all pleadings had been duly served through official email channels and that the Commission had acknowledged receipt but failed to act within the required timelines.

The respondent further dismissed claims of improper drafting, stating that although digital tools were used, the documents were personally reviewed and adopted.

In addressing the dispute, the court went beyond the issue of service and delay, focusing on the legality of AI-assisted pleadings within Kenya’s procedural framework.

Justice Chigiti emphasised that the Civil Procedure Rules establish uniform standards for drafting pleadings, which ensure fairness and consistency in litigation.

“To allow a departure from the rules of drafting will create a litigation disaster,” the judge noted, underscoring the risks of unregulated technological intervention in legal processes.

The court further found that failure to disclose the use of artificial intelligence tools amounted to misleading the court, rendering the proceedings irregular.

“It does not matter how well the case is argued if the pleadings were illegally drafted,” the court ruled.

Consequently, the court set aside the judgment issued in December 2025 along with all consequential orders, effectively reopening the case.

In addition, the court barred the ex parte applicant from filing any further AI-generated pleadings unless a clear legal framework is established to regulate their use.

A separate application dated January 20, 2026, was also struck out, with the court directing that costs be borne by the ex parte applicant.

While acknowledging the growing role of technology in legal practice, the court urged the Rules Committee to consider reforms that would formally incorporate artificial intelligence into Kenya’s legal system under defined regulations.

The decision marks a significant turning point in Kenya’s legal landscape, setting a clear precedent on the limits of artificial intelligence in court proceedings.