Tanzanian lawyer suspended for misleading court with fake cases

Dodoma. The High Court has suspended advocate Johnson Kachenje from practising law for six months after he was found to have lied to the bench by citing non-existent judgments generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI).

In addition to the suspension, the High Court of Tanzania, Dodoma Main Registry, went further and ordered the lawyer to publicly apologise to the court and the public for deceiving and misleading the bench.

Principal Judge Dr Mustafa Siyani delivered the decision on Thursday, September 3, 2026, ordering that the written apology be published in both Swahili and English in a widely circulated daily newspaper.

“The court must take firm action to protect the integrity of the legal profession, maintain its reputation and public trust, and ensure legal service providers adhere to the required professional standards,” he said.

“I am aware that this is not the first time non-existent cases have been cited in the High Court. In the case of Fam v. Zam (2025), the court faced a similar incident where a lawyer cited six non-existent cases,” he explained.

In that earlier matter, the court emphasised a lawyer's duty not to mislead the court, whether through active conduct or failure to act.

However, the court did not impose sanctions against the advocate at that time.

Judge Siyani noted that the repeated citation of fictitious cases, as occurred before him, shows that the court's previous lenient stance did not yield the intended results and was therefore insufficient.

“Furthermore, it shows that without appropriate preventive measures, such actions will not only persist but recur at an accelerating rate,” remarked Judge Siyani.

“To prevent the repetition of such misconduct and to ensure the sanctity of the decision-making process, as well as to maintain the integrity, reputation and public confidence in the legal profession, disciplinary measures are essential,” he added.

“This necessity and the actual imposition of sanctions is not a novel concept,” added the Principal Judge.

“The issue of citing non-existent cases or those generated by AI is not unique to our jurisdiction; it has been addressed by other legal authorities through various means,” emphasised Judge Siyani.

“Having found Kachenje guilty of professional misconduct, pursuant to Section 30(2)(a) of the Act, I hereby suspend him from practising his profession for a period of six months from the date of this ruling,” reads the document.

“Additionally, due to his failure to maintain the integrity and reputation of the profession by exhibiting honesty before the public, he is ordered to issue a written public apology to the public and the Court, signed by his own hand, for deceiving the Court through the citation of non-existent cases,” reads the decision.

“Should he fail to do so, his suspension period will be extended by one month until the notice is published,” he stressed.

“The publication must be rendered in both English and Swahili and published in a widely circulated daily newspaper. Proof of publication must be submitted to the Registrar of the High Court,” insisted the Principal Judge.

What exactly happened?

The root of the disciplinary measure stems from an application seeking an extension of time to file a petition for leave to institute judicial review proceedings, brought by the Board of Trustees of the Assemblies of God Gospel Church International (AGGCI).

The application was filed against six respondents: the Registrar of Civil Societies, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Mr Robert Ngai, Mr Paul Busungu, Mr Julio Usukwa, and the Attorney General (AG).

Previously, AGGCI had filed an application for leave to seek judicial review, which was subsequently dismissed by the court after it emerged that issues were included for which leave had not been sought.

Still intending to file for judicial review but finding themselves out of time, they applied for an extension.

Preliminary stages were concluded, and both parties appeared before Judge Siyani.

Advocate Kachenje represented AGGCI, while the 1st, 2nd and 6th respondents were represented by Advocate Omary Ngatanga.

State Attorney Moses Masami represented the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents.

The problem arose when Advocate Kachenje was given the floor to present arguments on behalf of his clients.

Advocate Kachenje cited rulings purportedly delivered by the Court of Appeal in the cases of Mwanza Restaurant Workers Cooperative Societies v. Regional Commissioner of Mwanza and Sanai Murumbe v. Serengeti Safari Lodge Ltd.

Opposing counsel were also allowed to make their submissions.

However, while drafting the ruling on the application, Judge Siyani attempted to verify the two authorities cited by Advocate Kachenje, but could not find them online or in the Tanganyika Law Reports (TLR).

“In fact, what I found on page 45 of the second volume of the 1986 TLR was the case of Joseph John Makune v. Republic,” the Judge explained.

“When I could not trace the decisions, I began to suspect that the citations might be non-existent, the worst kind of legal phantoms, which could be the product of Artificial Intelligence (AI) hallucinations,” noted the Judge.

“The prospect of a court being presented with non-existent cases and purported excerpts from the highest court in the land is something this Court could not ignore to avoid compromising the integrity of the judicial process and justice itself,” he stressed.

Orders issued to the Advocate

Judge Siyani noted that, to verify the non-existence of the cases, he issued two orders on August 4, 2026, directing Advocate Kachenje to submit copies of the cited cases by August 11, 2026.

“Failing which, he was to appear before me to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for citing non-existent decisions and creating the possibility of failing to be candid and forthright,” he said.

According to the Judge, this constituted a violation of Rule 6(1)(i) of the Advocates (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Regulations of 2018—namely, misleading the court or interfering with the course of justice by submitting false evidence or misrepresenting facts or law, contrary to Rule 92(2)(e)(i and ii).

“Or failing to uphold the honour and integrity of the profession and advance its reputation for fairness, justice and trustworthiness, contrary to Rule 113 of the same Regulations,” remarked Principal Judge Siyani.

On August 11, 2026, when the matter was called, Advocate Kachenje was unable to provide the court with copies of the cited rulings, despite his efforts to locate them.

“Those efforts included searching various sources and making direct contact with the Registries in Mwanza and Musoma, where the rulings were purportedly delivered,” the Judge explained.

Advocate pleads for leniency

Advocate Kachenje admitted to obtaining the referenced decisions from the internet and committing an improper professional error in citing them, maintaining that he did not do so out of malice or with the intent to mislead the Court.

“He remorsefully accepted responsibility for inadvertently citing non-existent references,” noted the Principal Judge.

“He stated that he had never been charged with or found guilty of any professional misconduct throughout his career, promised never to repeat the error, and pleaded for the Court's leniency against disciplinary sanctions,” added Judge Siyani.

State Attorney Kumbukeni Kondo, representing the 1st, 2nd and 6th respondents on that date alongside Advocate Masami, had little to add in response to Advocate Kachenje's plea.

Both state attorneys expressed empathy regarding his predicament, acknowledged the existence of professional misconduct, affirmed that the act was not committed maliciously, and requested the Court's leniency on his behalf.

The Judge's conclusion

After hearing the submissions, the Judge emphasised key points illustrating the severity of Advocate Kachenje's actions, reminding the court that Advocate Kachenje is an advocate and an officer of the legal profession.

“He is an officer of this Court who owes a duty to assist the Court in ascertaining the truth and in discharging its constitutional mandate to dispense justice with candour, courtesy and respect,” he said.

“The admissions and defence presented convince me that Advocate Kachenje is, at the very least, guilty of professional negligence. Professional negligence is tantamount to professional malpractice,” added the Judge.

“In this instance, I find that Advocate Kachenje failed to act with the skill, prudence and diligence expected of a reasonable advocate; first, by citing non-existent cases likely generated by AI, and second, by failing to verify the authenticity of the legal authorities used to build his arguments before this Court,” elaborated the Principal Judge.

“I am satisfied that he misled the Court by misrepresenting facts and law when citing non-existent Court of Appeal cases, likely generated by AI, for this Court to rely upon as precedent,” he added.

“What, then, should the Court do having established this? First, as the cited cases and excerpts claimed to be rulings of the Court of Appeal do not exist, they are officially expunged from the records of this Court,” said the Judge.

“Second, under Section 30(1) of the Advocates Act (Cap 341) and Rule 142(b) of the relevant Regulations, a High Court Judge serves as a disciplinary authority tasked with overseeing the enforcement of the Regulations by addressing misconduct or infractions by advocates,” added Principal Judge Siyani.

On these grounds, the Principal Judge imposed the penalty of suspending Advocate Kachenje from legal practice for six months and requiring him to issue a public and judicial apology.