Court incidents, official rule revisions and analysis in South Africa, as they enter the record. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.https://safelegalai.comen-gbCC BY 4.0 — SafeLegalAI, published by Cognesio LLPhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/legal-ai-regulation-summer-2026-what-changedhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/legal-ai-regulation-summer-2026-what-changedSummer 2026 reviewed: the SRA's AI warning notice, Ireland's mandatory AI declaration in civil filings and the EU's deferred high-risk AI Act duties.Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleukirelandus-stateeuindiasouth-africainternationalhttps://safelegalai.com/newsletter/this-week-in-legal-ai-safety-2026-36https://safelegalai.com/newsletter/this-week-in-legal-ai-safety-2026-36Issue 1: 50 incidents added, the SRA's misuse-of-AI warning notice, Ireland's Practice Direction HC 142, deferred EU high-risk duties, 128 tools on record.Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleukirelandus-federalus-stateeusouth-africainternationalhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/fjl-v-tgohttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/fjl-v-tgoA 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. Primary source: FJL v TGO (2025/220239) [2026] ZAGPJHC (31 Jul 2026), reportable full-court judgment (Charlotin database archive PDF) — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2724/FJL_v_TGO_2026__25-220239_GJ.pdfFri, 31 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentsouth-africahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/south-africa/za-judiciary-conference-2026-resolutions-aihttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/south-africa/za-judiciary-conference-2026-resolutions-aiAdopted at the 2026 Judiciary Conference held in Umhlanga, Durban, 13–16 July 2026. Resolutions adopted by the South African Judiciary on 16 July 2026. Section 5 directs the Judiciary Administration and Information Technology Steering Committee to finalise the draft judiciary AI policy, requires the Judiciary to retain governance over AI procurement and deployment, restricts initial AI use to efficiency tools, and mandates ongoing judicial education on responsible AI use. Primary source: SA Judiciary Conference — Final adopted — https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/news/2026/FINAL%20ADOPTED%202026%20Judiciary%20Conference%20Resolutions.pdfThu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationsouth-africahttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/south-africa-lpc-regulator-vacuumhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/south-africa-lpc-regulator-vacuumSouth Africa's Legal Practice Council has published no guidance on lawyers' AI use — so its courts are referring practitioners to it instead, case by case.Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticlesouth-africahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/molawa-v-matjhabenghttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/molawa-v-matjhabengMunicipal employees applied urgently to the Labour Court of South Africa in Durban to halt a disciplinary hearing after their lawyers found the presiding chairperson's ruling relied on labour-court authorities that do not exist. The court recorded the fictitious citations in its 13 July 2026 judgment; the court stayed the disciplinary hearing pending determination of the review application. Primary source: Molawa and Others v Matjhabeng Local Municipality and Another (2026-157576) (Labour Court, Durban, 13 Jul 2026), judgment (Charlotin database archive PDF) — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2674/Molawa_and_Others_v_Matjhabeng_Local_Municipality_and_Another_South_Africa_13__vv1MqtS.pdfMon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentsouth-africahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/south-africa/za-lssa-revised-generative-ai-ethics-guidelineshttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/south-africa/za-lssa-revised-generative-ai-ethics-guidelinesRevised draft ethics guidelines on generative AI for South African legal practitioners, published 1 July 2026 in De Rebus by drafters working with the LSSA AI Committee after a 2026 consultation. Practitioners are fully responsible for AI-assisted work, must assess local relevance and bias, and must address cybersecurity risks. Not formally adopted by the LSSA or Legal Practice Council. Primary source: LSSA AI Committee — Revised draft — https://www.derebus.org.za/responsible-ai-use-in-south-african-legal-practice-our-revised-guidelines-and-the-consultation-that-shaped-them/Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationsouth-africahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/south-africa/za-draft-national-ai-policy-withdrawnhttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/south-africa/za-draft-national-ai-policy-withdrawnWithdrawn in its entirety by Notice 3978 of 2026, Government Gazette 54840 (signed by Minister Solly Malatsi on 4 June 2026), after the draft was found to contain fabricated academic citations generated by AI. South Africa's draft national AI policy, gazetted for comment on 10 April 2026, proposed new oversight bodies including a National AI Commission. It was withdrawn in its entirety on 12 June 2026 after reporting established that several of its 67 academic citations — journals and authors alike — did not exist, apparently AI hallucinations in the policy's own drafting. Primary source: DCDT — Withdrawal — https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202606/54840gen3978.pdfFri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationsouth-africahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/south-africa/za-draft-national-ai-policy-withdrawnhttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/south-africa/za-draft-national-ai-policy-withdrawnApproved by Cabinet 25 March 2026 (and a special sitting on 1 April 2026); published as General Notice 3880 in Government Gazette 54477 for comment to 10 June 2026. South Africa's draft national AI policy, gazetted for comment on 10 April 2026, proposed new oversight bodies including a National AI Commission. It was withdrawn in its entirety on 12 June 2026 after reporting established that several of its 67 academic citations — journals and authors alike — did not exist, apparently AI hallucinations in the policy's own drafting. Primary source: DCDT — Draft for public comment — https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202604/54477gen3880.pdfFri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationsouth-africahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/northbound-processinghttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/northbound-processingIn 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. Primary source: Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v SA Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator (2025/072038) [2025] ZAGPJHC 661 (30 Jun 2025) — SAFLII — https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2025/661.htmlMon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentsouth-africahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/mavundla-v-mec-kznhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/mavundla-v-mec-kznIn 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. Primary source: Mavundla v MEC, KZN (7940/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 2 (8 Jan 2025) — SAFLII — https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAKZPHC/2025/2.htmlWed, 08 Jan 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentsouth-africahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/parker-v-forsythhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/parker-v-forsythWidely cited as one of the world's earliest AI-fabricated-citation cases, this Gauteng Regional Court (South Africa) matter reportedly involved counsel citing fictitious authorities produced by an AI chatbot. The neutral citation is corrected to [2023] ZAGPRD 1 (a Regional Court, not High Court, matter); the judgment body remains to be confirmed against a primary source. Primary source: Parker v Forsyth NNO (1585/20) [2023] ZAGPRD 1 (29 Jun 2023) — LawLibrary/Laws.Africa catalogue (neutral-citation authority; judgment body not machine-readable — [NEED: primary text via Juta/LexisNexis]) — https://lawlibrary.org.za/akn/za-gp/judgment/zagprd/2023/1/eng@2023-06-29Thu, 29 Jun 2023 00:00:00 GMTincidentsouth-africa