High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (Acting Judge Themba Khaba)
FJL v TGO, Case No 2025/220239 — judgment on leave to appeal and s18(3)
Sanctioned · 31 July 2026
What was fabricated
On appeal, the full bench tabulated 12 numbered citation discrepancies in the Acting Judge's judgment (the judgment text and the reporting both refer to "11 discrepancies"). The standout is "Lubbe v Volkswagon SA [2023] 4 All SA 289 (C)" — "This case does not exist" — relied on in five paragraphs: [75], [92], [93], [108] and [112]. Others include a citation belonging to an unrelated case (Myeni given SA Express Ltd v Bagport's citation; MEC for Health Eastern Cape v Mkhintha given Notshokovu v S's), quotes attributed to a correctly named case that in fact come from a different, uncited judgment, and a citation that does not exist at all (Premier for the Province of Gauteng [2020] 4 All SA 559 (SCA)). The discrepancies were identified by the appellant's legal team, agreed by the respondent's, independently confirmed by the senior librarian of the Johannesburg Society of Advocates, and separately verified by a court researcher before the hearing. Critically, the judgment recorded in some instances that junior counsel Ms K Mitchell had supplied references she had never provided: "The errors can therefore not be attributed to counsel."
What happened as a result
Appeal judgment delivered 31 July 2026 (Wright, Opperman and Mahosi JJ; reportable). The appeal was dismissed with costs — Khaba's outcome was upheld — but Opperman J issued a separate ruling referring the Acting Judge to the Legal Practice Council for investigation into possible professional misconduct. She held that "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'", while stating expressly: "I make no finding on whether AI was used." The AI attribution is the judge's assessment, not a finding; the non-existence of the cited authority is established. The ruling also records an accountability gap — the Judicial Service Commission has no authority over acting judges because it does not appoint them, so the LPC, with which an acting judge remains an enrolled practitioner, is "the most effective available forum".
Sources
- https://groundup.org.za/media/uploads/documents/fjl_v_tgo_2026_25-220239_gj.pdf
- https://groundup.org.za/article/acting-judge-referred-to-legal-practice-council-over-possible-ai-hallucinations-in-judgment/
Every incident is confirmed against at least one reputable source (mainstream news, legal/official, or the organisation itself). Nothing unverifiable is listed. Accuracy is non-negotiable — Ukweli is a truth product.