Skip to content

Incident Tracker / South Africa

Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator (2025/072038) [2025] ZAGPJHC 661

·High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg·ZARegulatory referral

In this Gauteng High Court (South Africa) urgent mining-licence application, counsel's heads of argument cited fake authorities generated by the AI tool 'Legal Genius'. Smit AJ granted Northbound interim relief but, invoking the Article 16(1) reporting duty, referred the practitioners to the Legal Practice Council — the second such South African referral after Mavundla.

Court
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
Date
2025-06-30
Who used the AI
Not recorded
AI tool
Legal Genius
Conduct
In heads of argument for an urgent licensing application, counsel cited non-existent authorities hallucinated by the AI tool 'Legal Genius', which claimed to be trained exclusively on South African law. Asked directly, counsel confirmed they appeared to be AI hallucinations. Smit AJ invoked the Article 16(1) judicial duty to report serious misconduct.
Outcome
Regulatory referral
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
Legal Practice Council (Gauteng Provincial Office): The court referred the practitioners to the Legal Practice Council (Gauteng) for investigation, invoking the Article 16(1) reporting duty under the Code of Judicial Conduct; the LPC disposition is pending. (2025-06-30)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-16

What was fabricated or misused

  • De Beer NO v The North Gauteng High Court [2011] ZASCA 117 — non-existent authority cited for interim protection where regulatory action is obstructed
  • SABC Ltd v Mninwa Johannes Mahlangu [2014] ZAGPPHC 861 — non-existent authority cited for interim protection after statutory processes completed
  • Khumalo v Director-General of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs 2021 (2) SA 72 (CC) — incorrect citation identified in Northbound's corrected heads
  • N & Z Instrumentation & Control (Pty) Ltd v Groenewald and Another 1976 (3) SA 565 (T) — incorrect citation identified in Northbound's corrected heads

What the court said

“While drafting this judgment, it came to my attention that two cases cited in Northbound’s heads of argument for key propositions on the mandamus, that could have been dispositive of this matter if they applied, do not exist.”
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, [86]
“In response to a direct question from the court whether the incorrect citations constituted so-called artificial intelligence “hallucinations”, Mr Barclay-Beuthin confirmed that they appeared to be so.”
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, [89]
“Written heads are as important a memorial of counsel’s argument as oral argument and, for purely practical reasons, are often more heavily relied upon by judges.”
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, [92]
“As is clear from Mavundla, however, even negligence in this context may have grave repercussions particularly to the administration of justice and, in appropriate circumstances, could constitute serious professional misconduct.”
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, [95]

Timeline

  1. Regulator issued Northbound's refining licence but retained physical release.
  2. Northbound launched the urgent mandamus application.
  3. Court heard the urgent application.
  4. Court granted interim relief and referred the practitioners to the LPC.

Why this case matters

Northbound shows South African courts applying Mavundla beyond family or leave-to-appeal litigation. The AI issue arose in commercial urgent motion papers, not oral argument, and the applicant still received interim relief. Smit AJ separated the merits from professional conduct: the licence order was granted, yet counsel's heads went to the Legal Practice Council. The record also matters because the tool was marketed as trained on South African law, so the court's answer was not tool avoidance but verification by the lawyers who file.

Practice note

Do not rely on a legal AI product's claim that it is trained on local law. Before heads are filed, counsel should run a citation check against SAFLII or the official reports, confirm that each case supports the exact proposition, and keep false citations out of both filed drafts and corrected versions. Senior counsel's sense check is not a substitute for cite-checking.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

Similar incidents on the record

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator (2025/072038) [2025] ZAGPJHC 661”, safelegalai.com/tracker/northbound-processing (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →