Lawyers appearing before KZN High Court Judge Rob Mossop have been cautioned to get their legal ducks in a row – or face the consequences, reports GroundUp.

In two separate rulings handed down on one day this week, he ordered one attorney (handling a divorce matter) to personally pay the costs of the application on a punitive scale, and he referred her conduct to the Legal Practice Council (LPC).

In the other, a liquidation matter, he barred the lawyers on both sides from claiming any fees from their respective clients and ordered that they refund anything already paid.

The divorce issue came before Mossop in an application to rescind a decree of divorce. A different judge had granted the divorce order in December 2025, in an application moved by the wife’s attorney as unopposed, even though the matter was opposed by the husband.

Mossop, faced with an urgent rescission application from the husband, sought clarity from the wife’s attorney Aphsana Yusuph as to what had transpired.

He also called for the divorce file, but was ‘inexplicably’ told that ‘it was missing’.

In her affidavit, Yusuph said the opposing documents had not been in the court file, and thus the rules of court had not been complied with.

'I am astonished at the attitude adopted by Ms Yusuph…There is not even a passing nod to the requirement that a legal practitioner is required to be entirely honest and candid with the court and not to deceive or mislead the court,’ he said.

Her conduct was contrary to the standards expected from those in the legal profession, Mossop said, and for that reason, she must pay the costs of the rescission application personally on a punitive scale, and her conduct must also be brought to the attention of the LPC.

The next matter on the judge’s motion court roll was an ongoing dispute between two brothers-in-law, the one attempting to liquidate the company they both owned.

Krishna Naidoo had, in August 2024, secured a provisional order winding up Gayregina Investments CC, owned jointly by him and Govindsamy Naidoo. Krishna Naidoo now wanted that order to be made final.

Mossop said had the applicant’s attorneys paused, and thoroughly researched the matter, it would have immediately become obvious that the application was moribund and could never, no matter how many adjournments were granted, have finally led to the liquidation, according to GroundUp.

This was because the company had been deregistered in February 2011.

He said both sides were at fault. Mossop said even when he alerted the lawyers about the fundamental problem, Krishna Naidoo’s attorney, Bala Naidoo and Company, had remained intent on ‘seeking the necessary relief from the court’.

The conduct of Advocate Selvan Naidoo, a trust account advocate representing Govindsamy Naidoo was ‘scarcely better’.

‘This matter has been poorly and slovenly handled from inception by both sides…’

He discharged the provisional liquidation order and barred Bala Naidoo and Company and Advocate Selvan Naidoo from deriving any fees in respect of the application.

Any fees already paid must be refunded within 30 days.

Full GroundUp report

Divorce judgment

Liquidation judgment