Durban attorney referred to Legal Practice Council after deceptive divorce order

DURBAN attorney Aphsana Yusuph faced severe criticism from the Durban High Court after deceptively obtaining an unopposed divorce order despite knowing the case was contested.

The court has referred her to the Legal Practice Council and ordered the return of improperly distributed pension funds.

This misleading conduct, which occurred in December 2025, resulted in pension funds being improperly paid out to her client.

Yusuph enrolled the matter on the unopposed roll even though she was fully aware that the opposing party had entered an appearance to defend.

Judge Robin Mossop, in a strongly worded judgment, criticised her actions: “Yusuph deceived the registrar into providing a date on the unopposed roll, and the acting judge was misled when the divorce was presented as unopposed.”

The couple, married in April 2012, was divorced by an order of Acting Judge Sibiya on December 1, 2025, when the matter was presented as unopposed.

Judge Sibiya's order directed the Government Employees Pension Fund and the South Africa Retirement Annuity Fund to make payments to Yusuph's client.

The man, being divorced, immediately filed an application before Judge Mossop, challenging the granting of the unopposed divorce order, stating that his former spouse's lawyers knew he was opposing the action.

The court heard that after the man, who was initially self-represented, filed his plea, Yusuph filed an exception on September 25, 2025, deeming the plea inadequate. 

On October 20, 2025, he received a notice of a set down for a hearing on December 1, prompting him to hire lawyer Brendon Kassel. Kassel submitted an amended plea and a notice to amend, indicating a counterclaim, on November 28, 2025.

Both Kassel and the man were shocked upon learning of the divorce order in January 2026. When Kassel contacted Yusuph, he was told the December notice was related to the divorce, not the exception.

In her defence, Yusuph told Judge Mossop that the opposing party's documents were allegedly not in the court file. However, Judge Mossop rejected this, pointing out Yusuph’s professional obligation, especially when dealing with a self-represented litigant.

“She knew that she was dealing with a person not trained in law,” the judge stated. 

“Legal practitioners must anticipate that litigants in person may err in their conduct. She also knew that the applicant (man) had filed an appearance to defend. That prevented her from seeking a date on the unopposed roll in motion court.”

Judge Mossop highlighted the attorney’s troubling lack of responsibility towards the truth, noting that she continued to blame the man for the events of December 1.

“It needs to be stated that the applicant is in no way to blame for what occurred on December 1. Yusuph knew the application was opposed but enrolled it on the unopposed roll nonetheless,” the judge emphasised.

Judge Mossop ordered Yusuph to pay the costs of the application. He interdicted and restricted Yusuph’s client from using the pension funds and directed that the money be paid to the applicant’s attorney’s trust within 48 hours of the judgment, IOL reported.

The divorce will now proceed in the trial court as an opposed matter. The registrar of the court was further directed to send the judgment and all relevant papers to the LPC for it to consider Yusuph’s conduct.

POST