A law firm cited seven cases invented by ChatGPT — the court didn't let it slide
Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Others — High Court (KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg) · (7940/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 2; 2025 (3) SA 534 (KZP)
A note on our sourcing
The judgment itself (SAFLII and LawLibrary) blocked direct automated access at verification time; facts here are cross-checked across two independent case notes (itlawco.com and familylaws.co.za) that agree on the citation, the court's findings, the Legal Practice Council referral, and the costs order — not read from the primary judgment text directly.
What happened
In an application before the Pietermaritzburg High Court, the legal team on one side relied on nine case authorities in written argument — at least seven of which turned out to be entirely fictitious, complete with invented facts, legal principles, and even non-existent judges. The court tested one of the phantom citations by putting the same case name to ChatGPT, which confidently 'confirmed' the fake case and elaborated on its made-up findings.
Why it made the news
It's one of a string of South African judgments since early 2025 where courts have caught legal teams citing case law invented by generative AI — and made clear that not knowing the AI could be wrong is no defence for a legal professional.
For lawyers & law students
The court found the reliance on unverified, AI-generated authorities 'irresponsible and downright unprofessional,' referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council, and ordered the firm involved to pay the costs of the additional hearings de bonis propriis (from its own pocket, not the client's). The practical duty: every citation in heads of argument must be independently checked against a real law report or database before it's relied on — an AI tool confirming a citation sounds right is not verification.
For citizens
If the case being argued for you relies on law that turns out to be invented, you can lose ground that has nothing to do with the actual merits of your matter — and your own lawyer can face real disciplinary consequences. AI tools can be a starting point for research, but never a substitute for a qualified professional checking the real sources.
Get new Case Watch posts by email
No account needed — just new legal content, when there’s something worth reading.