Skip to content

Incident Tracker / South Africa

FJL v TGO, Case No. 2025/220239 (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, full court)

·High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (full court)·ZARegulatory referral

A full court of the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, upheld an acting judge's findings in a parenting dispute but identified at least eleven fictitious or garbled citations in his judgment, most plausibly AI hallucinations. Opperman J referred the acting judge to the Legal Practice Council, highlighting an accountability gap for acting judges.

Court
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (full court)
Date
2026-07-31
Who used the AI
Judge
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Acting Judge Themba Khaba's first-instance judgment in a schooling dispute cited a nonexistent case (Lubbe v Volkswagen SA), merged material from unrelated cases into a false S v Smith quotation, and miscited Mkhintha, Knoop v Gupta and Myeni, with at least 11 discrepancies the full court found most plausibly explained by AI hallucinations.
Outcome
Regulatory referral
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
Legal Practice Council (South Africa): Opperman J, in a separate concurrence, referred the acting judge to the Legal Practice Council, reasoning that acting judges remain practising advocates subject to the LPC rather than the Judicial Conduct Committee. No LPC disposition on record. (2026-07-31)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-03

What was fabricated or misused

  • Myeni v Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse NPC and Others [2020] ZASCA 40; 2020 (5) SA 404 (SCA) — citation belonged to SA Express Ltd v Bagport (Pty) Ltd, not Myeni
  • S v Smith 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA) — quoted paragraph contained matter from Seletje Construction and Mont Chevaux, not S v Smith
  • MEC for Health Eastern Cape v Mkhintha and Another (157/15) [2016] ZASCA 112 — first citation belonged to Notshokovu v S, not Mkhintha
  • Premier for the Province of Gauteng and Others v Democratic Alliance and Others [2020] 4 All SA 559 (SCA) — citation did not exist
  • Ntlemeza v Helen Suzman Foundation [2017] (5) SA 402 (SCA) — quote attributed to it belonged to Incubeta Holdings and MV Ais Mamas
  • Knoop NO v Gupta (Execution) 2021 (3) SA 88 (SCA) — incorrectly cited for exceptional circumstances; the relevant Knoop judgment was 2021 (3) SA 135 (SCA)
  • KGA Life Limited v Multisure Corporation (Pty) Ltd [2021] ZAGPJHC 128; 2021 (6) SA 598 (GJ) — Eastern Cape judgment incorrectly cited as Johannesburg
  • Tyte Security Services CC v Western Cape Provincial Government and Others [2021] ZASCA 168 — citation belonged to Masako v Masako; correct Tyte citation was [2024] ZASCA 88
  • Knoop NO v Gupta (Execution), 2021 (3) SA 88 (SCA) — cited for prospects of success, which that Knoop judgment did not mention
  • WCJ and Another v PSJ and Others [2021] ZAGPJHC 25 — letters were muddled with S A H v S B H and the citation belonged to Morula Resources
  • Lubbe v Volkswagon SA [2023] 4 All SA 289 (C) — case did not exist
  • H v Fetal Assessment Centre 2015 (2) SA 193 (CC) at para 64 — judgment quoted as though from Fetal Assessment without reflecting Kotze v Kotze, and one sentence did not appear in Kotze

What the court said

“The most plausible explanation, certainly for the fictitious Lubbe reference, is that it is the product of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and what has been dubbed ‘hallucinations’.”
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (full court), [35]
“Names of non-existent cases are not law. Jumbled together quotes from cases, some identified, some not, are not law.”
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (full court), [62]
“The sources of law, the authority for legal principle, which is what the present case touches on, must be checked before they can be used and adopted into judicial reasoning.”
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (full court), [62]
“I intend forwarding this judgment to the Chairperson of the Legal Practice Council for an investigation.”
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (full court), [122]

Timeline

  1. Father launched the urgent school-placement application.
  2. High Court granted the order later appealed.
  3. Mother launched the section 18(3) enforcement application.
  4. High Court dismissed leave to appeal and lifted suspension.
  5. Full court heard the urgent section 18(4) appeal.
  6. Full court dismissed the appeal and Opperman J referred the acting judge.

Why this case matters

FJL is the tracker’s judge-authored false-authority record. Unlike Mavundla and Northbound Processing, the questioned material appeared in a judgment, not in counsel’s heads of argument. The full court still upheld the outcome after doing its own section 18(3) analysis, but Opperman J treated the discrepancies as a possible professional-conduct issue for an acting judge who remained an enrolled practitioner. The record matters because it separates the parties’ relief from accountability for the author of the judgment and identifies the LPC as the available forum.

Practice note

A judgment should not be handed down until each authority and quoted passage has been checked against the law report or SAFLII. Acting judges using research help or AI need the same final source audit as counsel. If discrepancies are found after delivery, address them on the record and through the proper professional body, not by private chambers discussion.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.

Similar incidents on the record

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “FJL v TGO, Case No. 2025/220239 (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, full court)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/fjl-v-tgo (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →