Machine-made pleadings and Constitutional rights: An analysis of Nayan Mansukhlal Savla v Commission on Administrative Justice HCJR Misc/E120/2025

1. Introduction

On 16th April 2026, Justice J. Chigiti (SC) of the Milimani High Court delivered a ruling that became, almost overnight, one of the most discussed judicial pronouncements in recent Kenyan legal history. The case, Nayan Mansukhlal Savla Commission on Administrative Justice HCJR Misc/E120/2025,

1 arose from a judicial review application concerning alleged failures by the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) to respond to the respondent\'s access to information complaints. What began as a relatively contained procedural dispute concerning service of process and CAJ\'s prolonged inaction transformed into something quite different when the court elected to treat the respondent\'s admitted use of AI and digital research tools as the decisive issue in the litigation.

2 The ruling set aside a judgment delivered on 23rd December 2025, struck out the respondent’s pending application dated 20th January 2026, condemned the respondent to pay costs, and imposed a personal bar prohibiting him from filing any machine‑generated pleadings in any court in Kenya unless there is a law in Kenya allowing or providing for the drafting using artificial intelligence tools.

3 This article examines that ruling on its constitutional and doctrinal merits.