The Supreme Court has ruled that legal arguments prepared by Professor Welshman Ncube with the assistance of artificial intelligence – and citing 12 fictitious judgments – are invalid and must be treated as a nullity.
The decision followed submissions by Advocate Thabani Mpofu, who represented Andrew Zuze in a mining dispute against Pulserate Investments (Pvt) Ltd, the appellant in the case.
Pulserate, represented by Professors Welshman Ncube and Lovemore Madhuku, had argued that the defective submissions could still be considered. The bench, however, dismissed this position.
A three-judge panel comprising Justices Susan Mavangira, Felistus Chatukuta, and Hlekani Mwayera upheld Advocate Mpofu’s argument that the AI-generated documents had no legal weight.
“The court has the power to erase these documents as of no consequence,” Justice Mavangira ruled.
The court also dismissed the appeal by consent, deeming it abandoned, and ordered Pulserate to pay costs at the higher scale.
“The matter is hereby removed from the roll, regarded as abandoned and deemed dismissed,” the ruling read.
The submissions came under scrutiny after being exposed as containing non-existent and defective citations generated through AI.
In a letter dated July 3, Prof Ncube apologised to the Supreme Court, describing the incident as a “catastrophic lapse in professional judgment.”
“I wish to express my profound regret and apology to the court for the citation of defective and non-existent cases in the heads of argument I prepared and caused to be filed,” he wrote.
He explained that the errors originated from a graduate researcher who used artificial intelligence to source case law without verification.
“Upon reviewing the respondent’s submissions, I questioned my researcher, who admitted to using artificial intelligence for research and failing to verify the material it provided,” he said.
Prof Ncube said he took full responsibility for the oversight, insisting there was no intention to mislead the court.
“It is difficult to imagine anything more embarrassing to me personally as senior counsel and officer of this honourable court,” he wrote. “The integrity of all legal proceedings depends on the accuracy of authorities cited.”
He also apologised to Advocate Mpofu for the inconvenience caused by having to verify the non-existent citations.
Legal analysts said the judgment – Pulserate Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Andrew Zuze and Others [SC202/25] – serves as a landmark cautionary precedent on the risks of unverified AI use in legal practice.
“This case is a wake-up call,” one legal expert noted. “It reinforces the principle that professional diligence and fact verification remain indispensable, even in the age of artificial intelligence.”
Source – the herald
