Applicant Counsel’s Position

Addressing the substance of the extension application, Mr. Kachenje argued that his client had acted promptly and had been hindered by technical delays. He further submitted that because AGGCI had already filed a judicial review application which was subsequently struck out, the leave originally granted for that application was fully spent and could not be relied upon in refiling a fresh application, meaning a fresh grant of leave, not merely an extension of time, was the correct remedy. He sought to support this argument by citing and quoting the two Court of Appeal decisions later found not to exist.

When called upon to respond to the show-cause order, Mr. Kachenje was unable to produce the decisions despite further searches and direct communication with the Mwanza and Musoma court registries. He conceded that he had sourced the cases online, accepted responsibility for what he described as an “unfortunate professional mistake,” stated that he had not acted in bad faith or with intent to mislead the court, noted he had never previously been charged with or found guilty of professional misconduct, undertook not to repeat the error, and sought the court’s forgiveness.

Respondents’ Position

Mr. Ngatanga and Mr. Masami were heard in reply on the substantive extension application, though the court did not find it necessary to record that portion of the proceedings in the ruling. On the question of the disputed citations, Ms. Kumbukeni Kondo, learned State Attorney appearing for the first, second, and sixth respondents on the relevant date, and Mr. Masami both sympathised with Mr. Kachenje, acknowledged that professional misconduct had occurred, agreed the citation amounted to a lack of proper verification rather than deliberate deception, and joined in seeking the court’s forgiveness on his behalf.

Court’s Findings

The court held that, as an advocate and officer of the court under section 75 of the Advocates Act, Mr. Kachenje owed an absolute duty of candour, to be open, honest, and sincere in his dealings with the court, which Rule 92(2)(e) of the Advocates (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Regulations translates into a prohibition on deceiving the court by misstatement of fact or law. The court found this duty was not diminished by the absence of bad faith: under the Regulations, a misstatement of fact or law is treated as an act of deception irrespective of whether it was made intentionally or innocently, so long as the advocate intended the court to act on the information conveyed. Since Mr. Kachenje had cited and quoted the impugned cases specifically to persuade the court to adopt his argument, the court found his lack of intent to mislead did not absolve him of responsibility.

The court further found that, at a minimum, Mr. Kachenje’s conduct amounted to professional negligence akin to malpractice, in that he had failed to exercise the skill, prudence, and diligence expected of a reasonable and ordinary lawyer, first by citing non-existent and potentially AI-generated cases, and second by failing to verify those authorities before relying on them in submissions to the court. The court noted this was not the first such occurrence before the High Court, referencing an earlier case, FAM vs ZAM [2025] TZHC 3948, in which counsel had cited six non-existent cases without facing any sanction, and held that the absence of consequences in that case had failed to deter repetition. The court also drew on comparable decisions from other jurisdictions, including the Australian case Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2), the English case Frederick Ayinde vs The London Borough of Haringey, and the American case Mata vs Avianca, Inc., in each of which courts had sanctioned lawyers for citing fabricated or unverified case law, to support the view that a firmer response than a mere reminder was now warranted.

Decision

The court held that Mr. Kachenje was guilty of professional misconduct, having deceived the court by misstating facts and law through the citation of non-existent and potentially AI-generated Court of Appeal decisions, contrary to Rules 92(1), 92(2)(ii), 6(1)(i), and 113 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Regulations. The court expunged the fabricated cases and quotations from its record.

Pursuant to section 30(2)(a) of the Advocates Act, the court suspended Mr. Kachenje from practice for six months from the date of the ruling. It further ordered him, under Rule 143(e) of the Regulations, to publish a signed written public apology to the court and the public, in both English and Swahili, in a widely circulating daily newspaper, with proof of publication filed with the Registrar of the High Court, failing which his suspension would be extended by a further month. The court made no order as to costs, and held more broadly that the judiciary should adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward the citation of non-existent or AI-generated cases, applicable equally to the Bar and the Bench.

READ/DOWNLOAD FULL DECISION BELOW: