Skip to content

Incident Tracker / South Africa

Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs, KZN (7940/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 2

·High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg·ZARegulatory referral

In this KwaZulu-Natal High Court (South Africa) leave-to-appeal ruling, the applicant's papers cited non-existent authorities generated via ChatGPT by a candidate attorney and unchecked by counsel. Bezuidenhout J called AI-reliance irresponsible, dismissed the application with costs, ordered wasted costs against the firm, and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council.

Court
High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg
Date
2025-01-08
Who used the AI
Not recorded
AI tool
ChatGPT
Conduct
On an application for leave to appeal, the applicant's supplementary notice cited multiple non-existent authorities sourced from ChatGPT. The research had been done by a candidate attorney and was not checked by the attorneys or counsel. Bezuidenhout J held that relying on AI for legal research without verification is irresponsible and unprofessional.
Outcome
Regulatory referral
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
Legal Practice Council (KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Office): The court directed the registrar to send the judgment to the Legal Practice Council (KZN) for its attention and further action; the LPC's disposition is not yet on record. Wasted costs of two appearances were ordered against the firm Surendra Singh and Associates. (2025-01-08)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-16

What was fabricated or misused

  • Pieterse v The Public Protector, 2014 (3) SA 551 — no such case reported in the South African Law Reports or All South African Law Reports
  • Burgers v The Executive Committee of the Municipal Council of the Greater Germiston Municipality — no citation produced and no reference found
  • Dube v Schleich [2013] ZALC 16 — no such case published on SAFLII or reported in any law reports
  • Municipality of the City of Cape Town v Aon South Africa (Pty) Ltd — no such case reported in the law reports or on SAFLII
  • Moseneke v The Master [2001] 2 ALL SA 585 (T) — no such All South African Law Reports case; supplied Constitutional Court case did not address service
  • Citi Bank NA v L & M Commercial Limited [1995] 1 ALL SA 352 (A) — no such All South African Law Reports case; supplied Competition Tribunal matter did not address service
  • Hassan v Coetzee [2004] 3 All SA 121 (T) — no such case reported in the All South African Law Reports, South African Law Reports or on SAFLII
  • Jordaan v Pienaar [2002] 1 ALL SA 398 (T) — no such All South African Law Reports case; supplied Pienaar v Jordaan was unrelated to service
  • Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Lethole [2002] 2 ALL SA 353 (T) — no such case reported in the All South African Law Reports, South African Law Reports or on SAFLII
  • Makro Properties (Pty) Ltd v Raal 2003 (1) SA 368 — no such case reported in the South African Law Reports, All South African Law Reports or on SAFLII
  • National Treasury v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (2012) 6 SA 223 (CC) — existent case cited for urgency, but the court found it dealt with interim interdicts

What the court said

“Of the nine cases referred to and cited, only two could be found to exist, albeit that the citation of one was incorrect.”
High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg, [20]
“She contended that the case references were provided to her by the ‘article clerk’, Ms Rasina Farouk, employed by the firm, and that she had not had sight of the cases as she was ‘overbooked’ and working under a lot of pressure.”
High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg, [21]
“In my view, relying on AI technologies when doing legal research is irresponsible and downright unprofessional.”
High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg, [50]
“Had whoever signed the supplementary notice of appeal and who was responsible for supervising Ms Farouk’s handiwork and research, done the most basic check, the issue would have been discovered even before the document was issued and served.”
High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg, [54]

Timeline

  1. A rule nisi containing interdictory relief was granted in Mavundla's favour.
  2. Bezuidenhout J discharged the rule and rescinded the order.
  3. The court delivered reasons for the 19 June order.
  4. The applicant filed a supplementary notice citing disputed authorities.
  5. The court emailed counsel requesting copies of the cited cases.
  6. The firm was given a final chance to produce the authorities.
  7. Leave to appeal was refused; wasted costs and an LPC referral followed.

Why this case matters

Mavundla moved South Africa's record beyond Parker v Forsyth, which the High Court described as more lenient. Here the unsupported authorities reached a High Court leave-to-appeal hearing, came through a candidate legal practitioner's work, and were not checked by counsel or the firm principal. The order paired de bonis propriis costs with a Legal Practice Council referral. It also treated the problem as a failure of supervision, not only a chatbot error, because the signed supplementary notice was a filed court document.

Practice note

A firm cannot pass court research from a candidate legal practitioner to counsel without a source check. Before filing, the principal or counsel should retrieve each case from SAFLII, the South African Law Reports, or the All South African Law Reports, read the passage relied on, and keep a record of the database used. If the court asks for authorities, provide the reports, not search-result snippets or unsupported explanations.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

Similar incidents on the record

  • Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965; 2025 ONSC 67852025-12-04 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · Regulatory referralIn Ontario, lawyer Jisuh Lee filed a ChatGPT-fabricated factum, then admitted she had lied about authorship after initially blaming others. Justice Myers referred a criminal-contempt prosecution to Ontario's Attorney Ge…
  • Mezu v. Mezu (Md. App. Ct. 2025), No. 361 Sept. Term 20252025-10-29 · Appellate Court of Maryland · Regulatory referralMaryland's intermediate appellate court referred an attorney to the state Attorney Grievance Commission after his client's brief cited multiple fictitious ChatGPT-generated cases and he conceded he routinely did not rea…
  • MS (Professional conduct, AI generated documents) Bangladesh, [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC)2025-08-12 · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) · Regulatory referralBefore the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), barrister Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman cited a fabricated Court of Appeal case, Y (China), drafted using ChatGPT without verification. The tribunal, led by its Pre…
  • Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 952025-01-31 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · Regulatory referralIn one of Australia's first AI-citation cases, a solicitor before the Federal Circuit and Family Court cited non-existent Federal Court authorities and fabricated tribunal quotes generated by ChatGPT. Judge Skaros found…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs, KZN (7940/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 2”, safelegalai.com/tracker/mavundla-v-mec-kzn (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →