Casoojee Christmas plea meets legal wall as Advocate Lana Bezuidenhout declines comment

A long-running parental alienation dispute involving Johannesburg-based father Asif Casoojee and his ex-wife's attorney Kaamilah Paulse has resurfaced during the December school holidays, after Casoojee was denied access to his children during the festive season. Casoojee says he hoped to take the children on to a religious trip in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, a request he maintains would have been spiritually meaningful and consistent with their Muslim upbringing. Instead, he was informed that his proposed travel plans could not proceed.

The refusal came from Paulse's law firm Herold Gie Attorneys. In correspondence responding to Casoojee’s request, Paulse’s team stated that the April 2023 court order regulating parental contact does not provide for extended December holiday access or international travel, and that any such arrangements would require a formal amendment to the order.

Casoojee claims that he sent Paulse a letter on the 5th of December stating that he would like to take his children on a religious holiday on the 18th of December 2025 but Paulse only responded to the letter on the 18th of December, the date the Casoojees were set to travel. He says his wife is not aware of some of the irregular things her lawyer is doing and has thus provided that evidence to the Legal Practice Council.

“She waited for me to pay for the trip and when my children were excited about the holiday, she sent the letter declining the trip. This is not even my ex, it’s the lawyer. The delay was to spite me. That is the playbook we’ve been accustomed to for more than four years now. It is malicious to let children and their father plan a holiday only to crash it on the day they’re set to travel. I only hope the LPC sees the matter for what it is.” Casoojee said.

The advocate briefed by Paulse in this matter has declined to comment publicly on questions surrounding the case, citing professional rules governing members of the Bar.

Advocate Lana Bezuidenhout, the advocate on record in the matter, was approached by The Star for comment on several issues relating to the matter, including alleged outstanding legal fees, and broader allegations linked to the dispute. On a short call with the newspaper, Bezuidenhout replied briefly: “Hi, sorry! I can’t talk to the media. It’s the bar rules.”

The Star had sent the detailed list of questions seeking clarity on the legal and ethical dimensions of the case, which has drawn attention because of its duration and the disputes arising from it. Among the questions posed was whether Bezuidenhout is the advocate of record in the matter and whether she has allegedly gone unpaid for work spanning the past two years.

The paper also sought comment on the legality of contingency-based work in divorce proceedings. Under South African law, contingency fee agreements are strictly regulated and are generally prohibited in certain categories of matters, including divorce cases. 

This is not Casoojee's first altercation with Paulse. In 2024 he reported Paulse to the LPC accusing her of dishonesty, unethical and dishonest conduct, including orchestrating parental alienation, misusing the Protection from Harassment Act, and unlawfully interfering in his private and professional affairs.

In its findings delivered on 13 March 2025, the Appeals Tribunal of the LPC found that Casoojee had presented prima facie evidence of misconduct on both counts raised in his appeal.

Casoojee's first charge related to a final protection order obtained by Paulse against him in her capacity. According to the Tribunal’s report, the order was granted in his absence, allegedly due to defective service of the interim order, which had neither been delivered by SAPS as required nor included a return date.

The second charge was more serious, a conflict of interest and interference in the parental relationship between Casoojee and his children. The tribunal said it found prima facie proof of Paulse’s involvement in restricting Casoojee’s access to his children’s school, records, and communication, stating that her actions amounted to “parental alienation”.

The tribunal also flagged her alleged use of unlawfully obtained financial records and her participation in a private WhatsApp group discussing confidential details of Casoojee’s company. The Appeals Tribunal, chaired by Advocate Sonja Lötter, was critical of Paulse’s failure to address key concerns. 

In a letter to The Star earlier in the year Herold Gie Attorneys said: “We strongly disagree with the decision of the LPC Appeals Tribunal to refer the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee.

''While the decision has been made, it should be noted that no final finding has been made regarding Ms Paulse.

“Ms Paulse will, when the matter is heard by the disciplinary committee, be challenging the complaint,” the letter reads.