Sanction teardown · High Court of Tanzania, Main Registry, Dodoma, Tanzania · 2026-09-03
Registered Trustees of the Assemblies of God Gospel Church International (AGGCI) v Registrar of Societies and Others
What happened
In High Court of Tanzania, Main Registry, Dodoma, Tanzania, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Counsel cited a purported Court of Appeal decision that the court could not locate. The cited Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1999 was not found, and the quotation stating that leave is consumed by filing and cannot be resurrected after a case is struck out was treated as fabricated.
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Counsel cited a purported Court of Appeal decision reported at [1986] T.L.R. 45. The court found that page 45 of the 1986 Tanganyika Law Reports belonged to a different case, Joseph John Makune v Republic, [1986] T.L.R. 44; the quoted statement describing leave as a strict jurisdictional screen was therefore fabricated.
Which AI tool
an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.
Outcome
The cited cases and quotations were expunged; counsel was suspended for six months and ordered to publish a written apology, with a further one-month suspension for noncompliance.
Additional detail
Counsel Johnson Johannes Kachenje cited and quoted two purported Court of Appeal decisions that could not be located: Mwanza Restaurant Workers Co-operative Societies v Regional Commissioner of Mwanza, Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1999, and Sanai Murumbe and another v Managing Director, Serengeti Safari Lodges Limited, [1986] T.L.R. 45. The court found that the cases did not exist, that the quotations were consequently fabricated, and that counsel had misstated facts and law despite claiming the mistake was inadvertent and not in bad faith. The court expunged the authorities and quotations from the record, found professional misconduct, suspended counsel for six months, and ordered a public apology in English and Swahili.
How Citation Safe would have caught this
Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.
Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate
Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3103/God_Gospel_Church_Tanzania_September_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).