Roux v. van Greunen
High Court · Jan 29, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- High Court
- Record ID
- roux-v-van-greunen-2026-01-29
- Observed outcome
- The court dismissed the applicant's reliance on the hallucinated judgment and rejected the associated legal arguments, noting the applicant's failure to provide authentic authority.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court found that the applicant relied on a non-existent judgment, 'Matshoba and Another v Acting Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others,' which the court identified as an AI hallucination. The applicant was unable to produce an authentic copy, instead providing a 'compiled' Word document that contained further errors, such as referencing a non-existent judge.
Fabricated: Case Law | Relied on a non-existent judgment 'Matshoba and Another v Acting Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others' (applicant produced a 'compiled' Word document); court could not locate the reported or neutral citation and concluded it was an AI hallucination.
A 'compiled' Word document of a judgment is a red flag; courts expect neutral citations traceable to official reporters.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Unverified_citations
- Lack_of_source_authentication
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter was heard in the High Court of South Africa as an urgent application involving multiple counter-applications and requests for supplementary relief.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The applicant admitted to using AI systems but did not specify which ones.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.