A High Court judge has thrown out an application after finding that it had been drafted using an artificial intelligence (AI) platform.
In the judge’s view, the reliance on AI in drafting some of the documents in the case introduced flaws that rendered the application legally defective.
The application had been filed by Nayan Mansukhlal Salva, who is the petitioner in a case against the Kenya Psychiatric Association.
Mr Salva moved to court under a certificate of urgency, seeking to suspend the court’s earlier procedural directives.
He had sued the association after it allegedly failed to comply with a directive issued by the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ), also known as the Office of the Ombudsman, ordering it to provide him with information he had requested in June 2022.
The information he sought included the association’s policies, code of conduct and the avenues available to members of the public who may wish to lodge complaints against a member of the psychiatric association.
The Ombudsman had directed the association’s CEO to facilitate access to the requested records within seven days.
However, Mr Salva claimed he encountered persistent frustrations while attempting to enforce the Ombudsman’s directive, prompting him to escalate the matter to the High Court.
Once before the court, the Kenya Psychiatric Association challenged the suit by filing a preliminary objection, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
Last month, Justice Bahati Mwamunye, who is handling the case, directed that the preliminary objection be heard first and issued a timetable for written submissions by all parties between March 5 and May 19, 2026.
Those directions triggered Mr Salva to file the application. He sought to halt the submission timetable and have the matter addressed immediately before the deadlines progressed further.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye during a past court proceeding on March 14, 2025.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
Mr Salva said the application was made in good faith and was intended to help the court manage the matter efficiently while avoiding unnecessary proceedings.
He further argued that the prolonged timetable would further delay enforcement of the CAJ directive and expose him to unnecessary and irrecoverable legal costs.
"The Applicant risks unnecessary and irrecoverable costs and duplication of arguments,” he said.
Representing himself, Mr Salva told the court that he had limited resources to sustain a prolonged legal battle. He also noted that he lives with vulnerabilities arising from prior involuntary psychiatric treatment.
“The Applicant respectfully seeks urgent case-management directions to avoid procedural disadvantage and to secure equal access to justice,” he said.
However, in his ruling, Justice Mwamunye focused on the manner in which the notice of motion and the supporting affidavit had been prepared.
Artificial intelligence.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
“The Court registers its concern over how the impugned supporting affidavit was commissioned by a Commissioner for Oaths, given that it was electronically signed. Furthermore, a general review of both the application and the supporting affidavit satisfies this court that both were machine-generated.”
According to the judge, the law may tolerate digital tool but it still demands a human hand.
“An applicant moves the court either in their own words or in the words drawn by counsel or any other lawful representative. As the law stands today, computer-generated or outputs of 'artificial-intelligence' cannot be a proper substitute for human-drawn documents. A party must draw and file their documents on their own accord and by their own hand or through their legal representatives. The defects cannot be cured by an amendment. Consequently, and for the foregoing reasons, the petitioner’s application and its supporting affidavit are hereby struck out with no costs on the same.”
