DAR ES SALAAM: ARTIFICIAL intelligence has become an ind ispenable tool in dispute resolution. It can assist with legal research, document review, translation, transcription, case management, and the preparation of draft submissions. These technologies improve efficiency, reduce costs, and make arbitration more accessible.
However, when AI begins to influence substantive aspects of an arbitral process particularly the evaluation of evidence, legal reasoning, or the drafting of awards significant due-process and enforceability concerns arise. rom the perspective of judicial practice, the greatest concern is that AI must never replace independent human judgment. The legitimacy of arbitration rests on the parties’ confidence that their dispute has been determined by impartial arbitrators exercising their own reasoning.
If an arbitrator delegates critical functions to AI, parties may legitimately question whether they have received a fair hearing or whether the award genuinely reflects the tribunal’s own assessment of the evidence and applicable law. Such concerns directly implicate fundamental procedural guarantees, including the right to be heard, transparency in decisionmaking, and the tribunal’s duty to independently evaluate the issues before it. Where AI influences substantive reasoning without appropriate human oversight, an arbitral award may be vulnerable to challenges on the basis that the tribunal failed to exercise its own judgment or that the parties were denied a fair opportunity to address matters that influenced the outcome.
We have already seen examples demonstrating the risks associated with uncritical reliance on generative AI. In FAM v ZAM, High Court of Tanzania at Mbeya, in Matrimonial Appeal No. 212 of 2025, counsel cited six non-existent authorities generated by AI tools.
The High Court emphasised that advocates owe duties to the court, their clients and the administration of justice to accurately represent the law, verify authorities, and use technology competently. The Court further observed that misuse of AI may attract sanctions, including adverse costs orders, striking out proceedings, referral to professional disciplinary bodies, contempt proceedings, or even criminal liability. Similar concerns have emerged internationally.
Courts in Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe have all encountered fabricated AI-generated citations, reinforci…
Summary from source