A High Court in Kenya has struck out an application after finding that parts of the filing had been drafted using an artificial intelligence platform.

In the court’s view, reliance on AI in preparing some of the documents introduced flaws that rendered the application legally defective, prompting its dismissal.

The application had been filed by Nayan Mansukhlal Salva, the petitioner in a case against the Kenya Psychiatric Association.

Salva moved to court under a certificate of urgency through a notice of motion seeking to suspend the court’s earlier procedural directives in the matter. 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 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 wishing to lodge complaints against a member of the psychiatric association.

The ombudsman had directed the association’s chief executive to facilitate access to the requested records within seven days, noting that such information ought to be proactively disclosed and regularly updated.

But Salva said he encountered frustrations while attempting to enforce the ombudsman’s directive, prompting him to escalate the matter to the High Court.

Submissions timetable
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, the court 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 prompted Salva to file the application, seeking to halt the submission timetable and have the matter addressed immediately before the deadline.

Salva argued that complying with the timetable would force him to expend time, costs and resources on a process that could prove unnecessary if the court first determined the procedural issues he had raised.

“The applicant respectfully seeks urgent orders staying or holding in abeyance further steps under the preliminary objection timetable pending determination of the section summons, and directions placing the said summons before the judge for same-day directions and priority determination,” he told the court.

He added that the application had been made in good faith and was intended to help the court manage the matter efficiently while avoiding unnecessary proceedings.

Salva further argued that the prolonged timetable would delay enforcement of the CAJ directive and expose him to unnecessary and irrecoverable legal costs.

“The applicant risks further delay in the enforcement of the CAJ order, thereby prolonging the alleged continuing violation of the applicant’s rights. The applicant risks unnecessary and irrecoverable costs and duplication of arguments,” he stated.

Power imbalance
Representing himself, Salva told the court that he had limited resources to sustain a prolonged legal battle. He also said he lives with vulnerabilities arising from prior involuntary psychiatric treatment, arguing that the resulting power imbalance and practical limitations made extended and duplicative procedural processes particularly prejudicial.

“The applicant respectfully seeks urgent case-management directions to avoid procedural disadvantage and to secure equal access to justice,” he said.

Court papers

In its ruling, the court focused on how the notice of motion and the supporting affidavit had been prepared.

“The court notes that the application does not comply with Order 51 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application, being a formal written application, is also non-compliant with Rule 19 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, and it is not in the format specified as 'Form D' in the Schedule to the Constitution of Kenya Practice and Procedure Rules.

“The court further notes that the supporting affidavit annexed to the petitioner/applicant's Notice of Motion Application does not conform to the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. I am satisfied that the defects raised above are mere procedural technicalities and render the supporting affidavit incapable of being properly an affidavit under the law,” the court noted.

The court also raised concerns about the apparent use of artificial intelligence in preparing the filing.

“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 court, while digital tools may assist legal work, the law still requires documents to be prepared by a person.

“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 its 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.”