Appearance
How it works
You can use JuriBase AI well without knowing its underlying mechanisms. Knowing them means you can see how an answer was reached rather than taking it on faith.
The short version
JuriBase AI searches a body of Kenyan law, selects the material relevant to your question, and writes an answer grounded in what it found. It then shows you the sources it used.
The answer is not the product of a model recalling what it once read. It is written from documents retrieved for your specific question, and those documents are listed underneath so you can open them yourself.
What it searches
Case law, across the courts you actually cite:
- Supreme Court
- Court of Appeal
- Environment and Land Court, Employment and Labour Relations Court, and the High Court
- Magistrate's Courts and Kadhi's Courts
- Small Claims Court
- Tribunals
Legislation — every Act in force, together with the Constitution.
Regulatory material — determinations of the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner.
It reaches as far back as the reported record itself — to around 1930 — so an authority being old is not a reason to expect it to be missing. The corpus is refreshed at least once a week.
Your own documents. Anything you attach with the paperclip is used as context only in the chat you attached it to; it is not drawn on in your other conversations. Everything you have uploaded is listed under My Documents in the sidebar, where you can request permanent deletion.
What the progress log is telling you
While a task runs, JuriBase AI narrates what it is doing.
You will not see every step on every task. The assistant runs what the job needs, which is why one question takes seven steps and another twelve. Many steps carry a second line naming what they are working on, such as the issue being searched or the section being drafted.
Working out what you are asking
| Step | What is happening |
|---|---|
| Analyzing your question | Establishing what kind of task this is and, where it matters, which side you are on |
| Identifying the legal issues | Turning your question into the legal issues that need answering |
| Planning the approach | Deciding what to research, and in what order |
Researching
| Step | What is happening |
|---|---|
| Researching the issues | Running several searches at once — the line names them, grouped by case law, legislation and Constitution |
| Searching case law | Searching the law reports for decisions on the issue |
| Searching legislation | Searching the Acts, or looking up a specific section |
| Searching the Constitution | Searching constitutional provisions |
| Looking up court rules | Finding the procedural rule that applies |
| Finding supporting authority | Looking for authority for a specific proposition |
| Surveying the case law | Counting, listing or grouping cases to see the shape of the landscape |
Working through what it finds
| Step | What is happening |
|---|---|
| Screening the cases | Sifting candidates for the ones that actually bear on your issue |
| Examining a judgment | Reading a decision closely rather than skimming a headnote |
| Selecting the most relevant sources | Narrowing to the material the answer will be built on |
| Reviewing earlier results | Revisiting what it has gathered, and going back for more where there are gaps |
Your documents and your matter
| Step | What is happening |
|---|---|
| Reading your documents | Reading an attachment you provided |
| Recalling the matter | Bringing back what it already knows about this matter |
| Reviewing earlier drafts | Looking at drafts produced earlier in the matter |
| Noting the matter details | Recording a fact about the matter for later |
Specialist steps
| Step | What is happening |
|---|---|
| Identifying the judge | Resolving which judicial officer you mean |
| Analyzing the bill of costs | Working through a bill of costs |
Producing the answer
| Step | What is happening |
|---|---|
| Planning the document | Setting out the structure before writing |
| Drafting the response | Writing a section, numbered against the outline |
| Refining the response | Reworking a section it has already written |
| Reviewing the draft | Critiquing its own draft before you see it |
| Verifying citations | Checking the authorities it is about to cite |
| Synthesizing the answer | Assembling the answer from the material gathered |
| Composing the answer | Writing the final answer from the run's sources |
| Finalizing | Last checks before the answer appears |
Reviewing the draft means it criticises its own work before you read it. Verifying citations means the authorities are checked rather than assumed.
Why it does not invent authorities
It answers from material it has retrieved and links each source, so an invented citation would have no document behind it.
It will also tell you when it cannot find what you asked for. Asked for Supreme Court authority on a point where none exists, it says so and gives you the Court of Appeal line instead.
Verify anyway. Every case comes with a View in Kenya Law link so that checking costs seconds.
The confidence badge
Each answer carries a confidence rating. It is not a calculated score. It is the assistant's own assessment of how well it handled the task, taking account of whether your instructions were clear and whether it found plenty of supporting material.
Because it is a judgment rather than a measurement, the same question asked twice can come back rated differently. A medium or low rating is a prompt to read the underlying authorities more closely; it does not mean the answer is wrong, and a high rating does not excuse you from checking.
Choosing a model
The selector beneath the question box sets the main model used for your task. Some of the specialist tools will still use whichever model is best suited to their particular job, regardless of what is selected there.