(1)
(2)
(3)
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
REVISED. YES
…………………….
…………………….
DATE 2 October 2025 SIGNATURE………...………………
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
CASE NUMBER: 3124/2025
In the matter between:
INTERNATIONAL PENTECOST HOLINESS CHURCH
(THABAZIMBI BRANCH)
APPLICANT
-and-
MATLI LESIBA LUCAS 1ST RESPONDENT
SEKOBOANE ABEL SONNYBOY 2ND RESPONDENT
MOTHLAKE PHILLIP 3RD RESPONDENT
MINISTER OF POLICE 4TH RESPONDENT
STATION COMMANDER 5TH RESPONDENT
THABAZIMBI POLICE STATION
FREDERICK LEONARD MODISE 6TH RESPONDENT
Delivered : 02 October 2025
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties’ legal representatives by e -mail. The date and time
for hand down of the judgment is deemed to be 02 October
2025 at 10:00 am.
Date heard : 02 October 2025
Coram : Bresler AJ
JUDGMENT
BRESLER AJ:
Introduction:
[1] The Applicant applies for an order restoring their undisturbed possession and
control of the Thabazimbi Branch of the International Pentecost Holiness Church
(IPHC) to Priest Mense Tshimole acting on behalf of IPHC and ancillary interdictory
relief.
[2] The Application was initially enrolled on the 1 st of April 2025 on which date it was
struck by the Honourable Naude -Odendaal J. Hereafter it was enrolled on the 8 th
of April 2025 and heard by the Honourable Kganyago J who similarly struck the
matter from the roll with costs.
[3] This resulted in a request to the Office of Judge President for a preferential hearing
date and the subsequent enrolment thereof before this Court on the 23 rd of
September 2025.
[4] The Applicant’s case is clear. The Applicant is a voluntary association and a
universitas that enjoys legal personality separate from its members. The Applicant
was in undisturbed possession of the premises utilized by the IPCH in Thabazimbi
and situated at Stand 9[...], Extension 4, Regorogile, Thabazimbi.
[5] The Applicant provided a detailed history of the historical disputes between the
IPCH, Frederick Leonard Goitsemang Modise (the 6 th Respondent) and Tshepiso
Modise. These two individuals were the sons of the late Comforter Glayton Modise
who claimed that t hey are entitled to be his successors in title. Their appointment
was however not favoured by the IPCH and Bhekhumzi Mike Gilbert Sandlana
(‘Sandlana’) was appointed accordingly as comforter on the 25th of October 2018.
[6] Tshepiso broke away and formed his own faction in Springs and the 6th Respondent
followed suit by forming his own faction called ‘Bring God Back Group’ or ‘Bana Ba
Morena Jakobo’ (BGB or Jakobo Group). The 6th Respondent and his followers
invaded the Zuurbekom premises occupied by IPCH. The eviction of these
followers is still pending before the North Gauteng Division of the High Court,
Pretoria.
[7] Several disruptions at IPCH premises followed. A disruption at the Leokaneng
Branch resulted in an order granted by the above Honourable Court on 4 June 2019
inter alia restoring possession and occupation of the premises.
[8] Legal proceedings were instituted by the 6th Respondent and Tshepiso to set aside
the appointment of Sandlana. These cases were however withdrawn, and the
applicable costs were tendered.
[9] It was anticipated that these disruptions would seize having regard to the challenge
to the appointment of Sandlana that was withdrawn. On or a bout the 15 th of
February 2025, the 1 st to 3rd Respondents came to the premises of the IPCH in
Thabazimbi with the sole purpose of challenging the leadership and questioning
who should lead the church activities. They are known supporters of the BGB
movement. These individuals however left the church already during 2019 to follow
the BGB movement and did not return prior to the February 2025 incident.
[10] The incident escalated to the point where the assistance of the South African Police
Services (the ‘SAPS’) was called in. The SAPS endeavoured to descale the
situation by locking the church and retaining the keys pending proof of lawful
occupation and possession of the church.
[11] The deponent presented himself to the P olice station on the 16th of February 2025
with the relevant documentation and the keys were returned to him. In the
meanwhile, Priest Mmopi (who is a lawfully appointed priest of IPCH) was served
with a Protection against Harassment order interdicting him from taking part or
interfering with the church activities.
[12] On the 22 nd of February 2025, the SAPS again attended the premises of IPCH
accompanied by members of the BGB. They found the premises locked by the
members of IPCH responsible for security. They then broke the padlock, entered
the church premises and subsequently arrested Priest Mmopi for contravening the
Protection order.
[13] Hereafter the church was again locked and the keys retained by the SAPS. On
Monday 24 February 2025, the deponent and his a ttorneys attended the SAPS to
procure the keys. He was informed that the keys were handed to the 2 nd
Respondent. The Applicant reiterated that the SAPS was in possession of
documentation proving that the deponent is in rightful possession of the building –
notwithstanding the said proof the keys were handed to the 2nd Respondent without
any legal justification and without the consent of the Applicant or the deponent.
[14] The Application is opposed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent
stated that he is currently a Priest at the IPHC (Thabazimbi branch).
[15] in liminé , the Respondents stated that the Protection order renders the current
matter before court lis pendens . From the onset, this Court indicated that, to
succeed with lis pendens, it must be shown that the cause of action is the same and
that the relief to be granted will have the same effect. Save for these requirements,
the Court retains a discretion to hear the current matter in favour of the other matter
even if the requirements of lis pendens are met. The parties were accordingly
directed to continue with arguments on the current matter.
[16] The 1 st to 3 rd Respondents furthermore denies that the deponent is the duly
appointed Priest for Thabazimbi as a certain Mr Hlabadira was appointed as Priest.
Proof was submitted by means of a letter purportedly from IPHC to the Station
Commander and dated the 27th of February 2025.
[17] The 1st to 3rd Respondents state that there are two church councils and that they
are representing the lawful council in terms of a court order granted by the Gauteng
Division of the High Court on 25 April 2016. The appointment of Sandlana is
therefore of no effect since it was not the correct council that supported the
appointment. In Court, and after this Court indicated that the withdrawal of the
proceedings resulted in that order being moot, it was argued that they were
appointed during the effective time of the order and this consequently validates their
appointment as the correct council. As is evidence from the analysis of the law
herein under, this Court is not called upon to determine this issue in these
proceedings.
[18] Quite critical to the determination of this matter is the fact that the Respondents, on
their own version admit that they were not in effective possession and occupation
of the church premises at the time when the alleged incident occurred in February
2025. They were in fact ‘chased’ from the church during 2019 and were utilizing
another p remises. This alternative premises was destroyed in a thunderstorm
resulting in them concluding that they are entitled to retake the church premises for
their own use.
[19] The 1 st to 3 rd Respondents also submit that, as their deponent is also a duly
ordained priest of the IPHC, he has a clear right to be in possession of the keys and
presumably to prohibit the Applicant’s deponent access thereto. This nullifies the
clear right alleged by the Applicant.
[20] In reply, particulars are provided as to the alleged court order appointing the valid
council. These proceedings were withdrawn. It follows that the effect of the Court
order has come to an end as the order explicitly provides that the status quo will
prevail only until the finalization of the dispute. Once the case was withdrawn, it
was deemed to be finalized.
[21] It was again reiterated that the Applicant was in lawful occupation, and remained so
until the 1 st to 3 rd Respondents unlawfully, and without the Applicant’s consent,
deprived them of their possession by utilising the SAPS to lock the church and give
the keys to the Respondents.
[22] Prior to the commencement of argument in court on the merits, the parties placed
on record that the 1 st to 3rd Respondents belatedly and on the 18 th of September
2025, delivered a notice in terms of Rule 7(1) challenging the authority of the
Applicant’s deponent and the attorneys to represent the Applicant.
[23] Judgment on this issue was delivered ex tempore in Court. In summary, this Court
found that the challenge was delivered out of time and without prior leave from the
Court. It is moreover evident that the 1st to 3rd Respondents’ challenge would result
in the Court making a finding as to the validity of the separate councils involv ed in
the underlying dispute. It was therefore found that for purposes of these
proceedings, and insofar as the Founding affidavit clearly shows the faction to which
the Applicant’s deponent belongs, the deponent and the attorneys have satisfied
the Court that they are indeed authorised to represent the Applicant as cited.
Issues that require determination:
[24] This Court is only called upon to determine if the Applicant was spoliated by the 1st
to 3rd Respondents and if a case was made out for the relief as prayed for in the
Notice of motion. Both parties conceded that no relief can be granted to the extent
of prohibiting the 1 st to 3 rd Respondents from attending church or accessing the
premises for purposes of attending church services or activities.
The Applicable Legal Principles:
[25] Spoliation is defined as the wrongful deprivation of another’s right of possession. A
person who has been dispossessed of property without due legal procedure may
apply to court to have the property returned to him.
[26] The nature of a mandament van spolie is described in the seminal case of Nino
Bonino v de Lange1, where the Learned Innes CJ at p.22 stated that:
‘Spoliation is any illicit deprivation of another of the right of possession which
he has whether in regard to movable or immovable properly or even in regard
to a legal right’.
[27] In the case of Yeko v Qana 2, it was held that an applicant for spoliation remedy
must satisfy the court that –
27.1 he was in possession or had quasi possession of the property; and
27.2 that the respondent deprived him of the possession forcibly or wrongfully
against his consent.
[28] It is evident from the papers before court that, at the time when the Applicant was
deprived of the keys to the premises by the SAPS, the Applicant was in possession
and occupation of the property.
[29] Whether its possession and occupation was legal or lawful, having regard to the
different factions and the underlying dispute between the respective councils of the
1 1906 T. S. 120
2 1973 (4) SA 735 (A)
IPHC, is not for this court to determine insofar as the relief is simply aimed at
temporarily restoring possession and occupat ion. It is trite law that a spoliation
order has an interim or preliminary or contingent character in the sense that it
determines the question of interim possession pending the determination of the right
to possess by litigation3.
[30] The second aspect that stands to be determined is if the Applicants were deprived
of possession forcibly or wrongfully against their consent. Having regard to what
has been stated, it is evident that the Applicant’s representatives did not freely leave
the premises. They were met with the intimidating presence of Police officers taking
the keys and locking the church premises. Hereafter, the keys were made available
to the 1 st to 3rd Respondent without due legal process and without the consent of
the Applicant.
[31] Deprivation of possession must also be wrongful. The 1 st to 3 rd Respondents
argued that the keys were taken by the SAPS and handed to them. They were
therefore not the spoliator s. In this Court’s view, they put the actions of the SAPS
in motion. It is on their instructions and at their behest that the SAPS intervened.
Subsequent hereto, they presented the SAPS with a letter claiming to be the rightful
occupants of the church premises and creating the impression that they have been
in possession of the premises all along.
[32] In this Court’s view, these actions are sufficient to conclude that the 1 st to 3 rd
Respondents are, in fact, the spoliators.
3 Potgieter v Le Roux (1909) 19 CTR 480
[33] As to the ancillary relief, it was inter alia argued that the Applicant is not entitled to
any interdictory relief as they failed to show a clear right. Having regard to the
findings in the ex tempore judgment on the Rule 7(1) notice, this Court finds that a
clear right has been shown to exist insofar as the Applicant’s deponent is the
representative of the faction of the IPHC church that made use of the chur ch
premises prior to their dispossession thereof. It must also be borne in mind that, at
this stage, the challenge to the appointment of Sandlana is no longer alive as the
proceedings were withdrawn. It follows that, in the absence of a pending dispute,
his appointment must be accepted as providing his faction of the IPHC with a clear
right to interdictory relief. The remaining elements, being an interference with the
Applicant’s rights and the lack of an alternative remedy that would yield a
satisfactory result, entitling the Applicant to final relief, is evident from the facts of
the matter.
[34] Although the Court, for purposes of these proceedings, finds that the Applicant has
a clear right to the interdictory relief, this does not prohibit a future challenge to the
validity of the appointment of Sandlana as this Court is not called upon to determine
the validity of his appointment or the authority of the respective councils
representing the IPHC.
[35] As stated during the hearing, the parties are urged to resolve this underlying dispute.
It is in the interest of the members of the church to have certainty in this regard. It
would also avoid a multiplicity of legal actions (as is evidently currently happening),
the costs of which can be utilised for the advancement of the church and its
members.
[36] Having said the aforesaid, the Applicant is therefore entitled to revised relief in terms
of the Notice of Motion.
Costs:
[37] The normal rule is that the costs should follow the outcome of the proceedings,
unless the Court, in its discretion, judicially exercised, finds otherwise. In this
instance, the Court sees no reason why the costs should not follow the outcome of
the proceedings.
[38] Both parties made use of counsel and the scale of costs pertaining to the
appointment of counsel must thus be set. This was a fairly uncomplicated matter,
considering the applicable law and the common cause facts between the parties. It
was however of considerable importance to the parties, and it has quite an
acrimonious backstory. In this Court’s view, costs to counsel are therefore
warranted on Scale B.
Order:
[39] In the result the following order is made:
39.1 The Respondents and all persons acting under their instructions and
authority are ordered to restore immediately, the undisturbed
possession and control of the Thabazimbi Branch of the International
Pentecost Holiness Church (IPHC) situated a t Stand number: 9[...],
Extension 4, Regorogile, Thabazimbi, Limpopo Province to Priest
Mense Tshimole acting on behalf of the IPHC.
39.2 The Respondents are ordered to return all the keys and / or duplicate
keys for the Thabazimbi Branch in their possession wi thin 48 (forty
eight) hours from the date of service of this order, to Priest Mense
Tshimole acting on behalf of the IPHC.
39.3 The Sheriff and / or his deputy is authorised, with the assistance of
members of the SAPS in Thabazimbi, to eject the 1 st to 3 rd
Respondents and / or people associating themselves with their
actions, from stand number 9[...], Extension 4, Regorogile,
Thabazimbi, in the event that no possession of the premises has
been restored to the Applicant, through Priest Mense Tshimole,
within 48 (forty eight) hours from the service of the order.
39.5 The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th Respondents, and all persons acting on their
instructions or who associate themselves with their actions, are
interdicted and restrained from directly or indirectly disrupting or
interfering or causing any person to obstruct the religious activities of
the Thabazimbi branch, Limpopo Province, under Priest Mense
Tshimole.
39.6 The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th Respondents, and all other persons acting on
their instructions, or who associate themselves with their actions, are
interdicted and restrained from entering and / or being within 50
meters from stand number 9[...], Extension 4, Regorogile,
Thabazimbi save insofar as their attendance or presence is for the
sake of attending any church and / or church related activities or
events.
39.7 The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th Respondents are ordered to take all reasonable
and necessary steps to ensure compliance with this order by their
supporters or people who associate themselves with their actions,
which includes, but are not limited to, publication of this judgment and
order on social media or any other platform where it can be reasonably
be expected to come to the knowledge of their members and / or
supporters and / or third parties having a potential interest in these
proceedings.
39.8 Leave is granted to the Applicant to serve a copy of this order and
judgment on the Respondents in the following manner:
39.8.1 On the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th Respondent by serving a copy thereof
at their current known addresses either by hand or by Sheriff;
39.8.2 Service on the 4 th and 5 th Respondent by delivery of a copy
thereof at their respective addresses and by serving a copy
hereof at the offices of the State Attorney, Polokwane.
39.9 The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying
the other to be absolved, will pay the costs of the Applicant on party
and party scale, including costs to counsel on Scale B.
M BRESLER AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE APPLICANT : Adv. Z Mokatsane
INSTRUCTED BY : Maselesele (L) Attorneys
Thohoyandou
info@maseleseleinc.co.za
advmokatsane@rsabar.com
FOR THE 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD
RESPONDENT
: Adv. T Mulaudzi
INSTRUCTED BY : NC Ramahuma Attorneys
Polokwane
mphoramahuma@gmail.com
adv.tmulaudzi@gmail.com