IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Reportable/ not Reportable
Case No:2633/2025
In the matter between:
ENLIGHTENED CHRISTIAN GATHERING SOUTH AFRICA
NPC REGISTRATION NO:2012/123593/08 First Applicant
ECG TNJC RUSTENBURG NPC
REGISTRATION NO:2024/408275 /08
and
GDS RAMAJHO N.O.
S SULEMAN N.O
FH SULEMAN N.O
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, PRETORIA
MASTER OF HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
Coram: MNYOVU AJ
Date heard: 30 April 2026
Date of Judgement: 07 August 2026
Second Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
ORDER
1. The application for declaratory order is dismissed.
11. Applicants are ordered to pay costs of the respondents on scale C.
JUDGMENT
MNYOVUAJ
INTRODUCTION
[l] This is an application in which the applicants seek a declaratory relief that
the second applicant ECG TNJC Rustenburg NPC be declared as the real owner
of the immovable property situated at Farm 200, WaterkloofRustenburg , North
West Province, which immovable property is presently registered in the name of
PROPHET SHEPHERD BUSHIRI MINISTRIES NPC (PSBM). In addition, the
applicants seek fourth respondent to effect registration of the said immovable
property into the name of the second applicant, and authorising first, second and
third respondents to sign all necessary documents to effect registration by fourth
respondent.
[2] This application is opposed by the first, second and third respondents on
various grounds, the fourth and the fifth respondent are moot in these
proceedings.
[3] The first applicant is ECG SA a registered non-profit organisation in 2014
and second applicant is ECG TJNC Rustenburg a company duly registered on 5
July 2024 as N.P.O in accordance with the laws of RSA. The second applicant
2
was previously known as Enlightened Christian Gathering Rustenburg Branch
(ECG Rustenburg). Because the second applicant was not established at the time
of acquisition of the immovable property PSBM, subject to this application, its
boards of directors authorised the institution of this application and mandated the
first applicant.
[ 4] The second applicant is reclaiming to vindicate Rustenburg rights over the
immovable property namely, PROVINCIAL SUPPORT BUSINESS
MANAGEMENT NPC (in liquidation) situated at Farm 200, Waterkloof
Rustenburg , NWP, registered under Prophet Shepherd Bushiri Ministries NPC,
which was liquidated by an Order granted in the High Court, Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg, under case number 107949/2023, on 06 February 2024.
[5] The first applicant claims that he has a locus standi to bring this application
together with the second applicant, they have aprimafacie case on the basis that
the second applicant is a true owner of the immovable property now in liquidation
by virtue of the intentions of Mrs Maria Mokoena who purchased the PSBM in
2018 on behalf of Rustenburg branch, the first applicant having been in
association with PSBM, the entity through which commercial/business activities
of the first applicant were carried out.
[6] The First, Second and Third respondents are joint provisional liquidators
appointed by the Fifth respondent on 8 May 2024 to wind-up the estate of
Provincial Support Business Management NPC (in liquidation), the registered
owner of the immovable property, the subject matter, is Prophet Shepherd Bushiri
in the Title Deed. The latter was arrested together with her co-accused wife for
fraud, rape and amongst others, money laundering here in South Africa. They
were released on bail, soon after, they fled to their native country Malawi, as a
result of the controversy surrounding the Name of the Ministry Prophet Shepherd
3
Bushiri Ministries, was changed into Provincial Support Business Management
NPC, however, the PSBM remained registered property of Prophet Shepherd
Bushiri in its Title Deed, currently the subject matter is at its final liquidation
stage by the joint liquidators.
ISSUES
[7] Against this background, this application turns on the following issues:
7.1 whether the applicants have made out a prima facie case for a declaratory
order to the effect that Clauses l to 3 of the Notice of Motion should be granted.
APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS
[8] The applicants submit that they have locus standi to seek declaratory order
from this Court, because of the intention of Mrs Maria Mokoena to purchase the
PSBM on behalf of the second applicant, PSBM will hold nodum dominin until
second applicant be registered as N.O.P by Mrs Maria Mokoena. That made the
second applicant the beneficial owner of the immovable property,
notwithstanding registration of the immovable property in the name of PSBM,
therefore, the relief is vindicatory, notwithstanding the title deed, and that first
applicant is a party to the agreement that the second applicant would be the owner
of the immovable property.
[9] The applicant submitted that they have interest in the subject matter of the
application, the immovable property has manifested. They submit that they are
entitled to the relief, whilst the immovable property is registered in the name of
PBSM, registration is only prima facie proof, the presumption of ownership is
not conclusive and can be rebutted, and they relied on various authorities and
DadabhayvDadabhayandAnother 1981 (3) SA 1039 (A).
4
[ 1 0] The applicant submitted that the issue of acquisition of the property by a
branch, was an issue which the D.E.M committees was empowered to deal with,
the applicants had to conduct meetings with D.E.M Committees and Resident
Pastor Ngwira, to deal with an issue of a branch acquiring land for its members
to develop it and get guidance from the D.E.M.
[ 11] It is on those meetings where it was agreed that Mrs Mokoena, the buyer
should nominate the PSBM an associated entity, as an entity in whose name the
property be registered pending the registration of the Rustenburg Branch as an
N.P.O . thus PSBM will hold the nudum dominium of the property, since the
PSBM was an entity through which the church business/commercial activities
were being handled/conducted, applicant submitted that the nomination of PSBM
was because Mrs Mokoena cannot register the properties in her names, as the
local branches were not registered as N.O.P.
[12] The applicant submitted after those meetings Mrs Mokoena purchased the
property through an offer of R4.9 Million Rands, acquired the property by sale
of Agreement, statements from Mrs Mokoena's FNB account demonstrate the
evidence to the effect of acquiring the property, meetings with D.E.M
Committees and resident pastor Ngwira coming into agreements, Annual reports
2017,2018 to 2019 demonstrate that second applicant is the true and the
beneficial owner of the PSBM in liquidation.
[ 13] Applicant submits that because of the agreement as such at all material
times the members and leadership of the second applicant conducted themselves
as the owners of the property in tum PSBM recognised the second applicant as
the beneficial owner of the property, never challenged the second applicant 's
rights over the property. The members started to raising funds to erect the
buildings on the property with the common understanding that the beneficial
5
ownership of the property vest with the second applicant. The congregants
pledged various amounts towards the building of the church, through its fund
raising, pledges and contributions from its members has to date spent not less
than R5 million rand to refurbish the PSBM old buildings.
[14] Applicant submitted further that on 05 July 2024 the second applicant was
then registered as N.P.O, the relief sought is essentially vindicatory in regard to
the second applicant. At the time the applicant registered the company, the
applicants were not aware that the PSBM was in liquidation or rather liquidated.
[ 15] Counsel for the applicant argued that the liquidators do not challenge the
intentions of second applicant and PSBM, despite disputing Mrs Maria
Mokoena 's payments for the purchase price of the immovable property,
developments and improvements made to the property, payments of the transfer
and sundry costs, instead they are purely speculating the amounts and
conjecturing .
[ 16] Counsel for the applicants argued that Section 2 (1) of the Alienation of
Land Act 68 of 1981 as contended by the respondents was misplaced, as the
applicants do not seek to enforce the sale or exchange or donation of the land in
tenns of the Alienation of Land Act, instead what is asserted is the second
applicant 's ownership of the immovable property registered in its name.
FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENT 'S SUBMISSIONS
[17] In opposing of the application, the respondents submitted that the
applicants have no cause of action, no evidence has been provided of the alleged
purchase of R4 900 000.00, the statement of account, dated 18 March 2024, from
Dup West Inc Attorneys addressed to PSBM reveals that the purchase price of
R4 9 million was paid in instalments from July 2017 to April 2018 by PSBM no
6
evidence in the founding affidavit that there was any compliance with the
formalities of the Alienation of Land Act, No 68 of 1981, which sets out the legal
requirements for the sale, exchange or donation of land, it mandates that all such
agreements must be in writing and signed by the parties involved ( or their
authorised representatives) and that all alienation of land must be contained in a
Deed. There is no power of attorney between Mrs Maria Mokoena and the
Attorneys, nothing links her to the transfers of the property except Botha and
PSBM.
[18] The respondents submit that second applicant failed to prove ownership of
the property, they have no locus standi or primafacie in their application, there
is no evidence to support all their contentions set out in their founding affidavit.
The redacted FNB Bank statements from Mrs Maria Mokoena does not create
any transfer rights for second applicant.
[19] The respondents further submitted that the allegation "beneficial
ownership " does not defeat and/or justify the non-compliance with the provisions
of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981, they devise the sham to avoid the sale
of property and realisation of the asset by the joint liquidators in order to pay
PSBM's creditors.
[20] Counsel for the respondents argued that the word "beneficial ownership "
does not exist in our law, if there is alleged ownership, the applicants should
prove their real right, their relationship between them and the immovable
property they are claiming, the applicants are claiming specific performance from
the liquidators because they had a contractual arrangement with PSBM, the
Performa Tax Invoice from Conveyancers reflects names of PSBM and
addressed to the latter, as well as Title Deed.
7
[21] Counsel for the respondents submitted that with PSBM having registered
in the Title Deed on its own demonstrate that the applicants have failed to prove
their real right over the immovable property PSBM, nothing links the Second
applicant to the immovable property, not even in the Title Deed. Respondents
relied to legal authorities of Lucas 'Trustee v Ismael and Ayob 1905 TS 239 and
Strydom in support court's decision that with the issue of whether the respondents
were entitled to the proceeds of the expropriation of the property, it was held that
if the respondents were to succeed, it could be because they were owners of a jus
in re (real right) in regard to the land of which the proceeds were in dispute.
[22] Counsel for the respondents argued that the redacted bank statements from
Mrs Maria Mokoena were not disclosed in the founding affidavit, they were only
disclosed in replying affidavit, they stand to be rejected by this court, they were
not pleaded by the applicant in the founding affidavit, the applicant failed to
prove their prima facie case by failing to comply withs 2 (1) of Alienation Act
68 of 1981.
[23] The respondents counse l submitted that the applicants are claiming
persona l right not real right, which arise from their purported inter-partes
agreement, between them and their D.E.M Committees, and Resident pastor
Ngwira. The obligation to perform in the context of personal right may arise
from a contract, which the applicants claim from this application. In such case
the applicants had to comply with s 2 (I) of Alienation Act 68 of 1981, setting
out requirements for the sale of the property, to prove their ownership to the
immovable property, they have failed to do such as obligated by law to prove
them vindicate right.
[24] In reply, the applicants relied to the legal authority of Dadabhay where the
parties entered into an oral agreement of sale of land, such sale was noted as not
8
a contract of sale nor cession, it was not valid in terms of s 1 ( 1) of Act 68 of 195 7,
which was the reason the application does not require them to comply with
Alienation Act.
[25] Counsel for applicants submitted that the applicants are not seeking any
personal right but a vindicate right, based on the intention of the second applicant
in purchasing the property, the respondents seemed to ignore the trust
formulation between the parties, that it was agreed that second applicant is the
real and beneficial owner of the immovable property PSBM.
LAW
[26] Under common law, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to grant
declaratory relief'. Such power was conferred upon High Court by the provisions
of section 102 of the General Law Amendment Act 46 of l 953(Currently is
governed by section 21 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (Superior Courts).
[27] In terms of section 21(1) (c) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013, the
High Court may grant a declaratory order without any consequential relief
sought. The section provides as follows:
"21 (1) A Division has a jurisdiction over all persons resident or being in, and in
relation to all causes arising and all offence triable within, its jurisdiction and all
other matters of which it may according to law take cognisance, and has the
power-
( c) in its discretion, and at the instance of any interested person, to enquire
into and determine any existing future or contingent right or obligation,
notwithstanding that such person cannot claim any relief consequential relief
upon the determination' .
1 Geldenhuys and Neethling v Beuthin 1918 AD 426.
9
[28] The correct approach to section 21(1) (c), the wording of which is similar
to the erstwhile power conferred upon the court under section 10 (l)(a)(iii) of
now repealed Supreme Court Act 58 of 1959, was summed up by Corbett CJ in
Shoba v OC, Temporary Police Camp, Wagendrift Dam 1995 (4) SA l(A) at
14F-I as follows:
"an existing or concrete dispute between persons is not a prerequisite for the
exercise by the Court of its jurisdiction under this subsection, though the absence
of such a dispute may, depending on the circumstances, cause the Court to refuse
to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular case (see Ex Parte Nell 1963(1) SA
754 (A) at 759 H -760B). But because it is not the function of the Court to act as
an adviser , it is a requirement of the exercise ofjurisdiction under this subsection
that there should be interested parties upon whom the declaratory order would
be binding.
[29] In Nell's case, supra, at 759A-B, Steyn CJ referred with approval to the
following statement by Watermeyer JA in Durban City Council v Association of
Building Societies 1942 AD 27, fit 32, with reference to the identically worded
section 102 of Act 46 of 193 5: - The question whether or not an order should be
made under this section has to be examined in two stages. First the Court must
be satisfied that the applicant is a personal interested in an existing, future or
contingent right or obligation2 and then, if satisfied on that point, this court must
decide whether the case is a proper one for the exercise of the discretion conferred
on it.
[30] When considering the grant of declaratory relief, the court will not grant
such order where the issue raised before it is hypothetical , abstract and academic,
2 Family Benefit Friendly Society v Commissioner for inland Revenue et al 1995(4) SA 120 (T) at 125 B.
10
or where the legal position is clearly defined by statute.3
[31] A declaratory order is an order by which a dispute over the existence of
some legal right or entitlement is resolved. There must be a legal basis upon
which the declaratory order in favour of the applicant can be made, it would not
ordinarily be appropriate where one is dealing with events which occurred in the
past, such events, if they give rise to a cause of action, would entitle the litigant
to an appropriate remedy. The interest that the applicant should have, is at least
akin to the interest that a party has to intervene in the proceedings in the High
Court, i.e., have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter4.
[32] In Cordiant Trading CC v Daimler Chrysler Financial Services (Pty) Ltd5
the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed the two-stage approach adopted by the
then Appellant Division in Durban City Council v Association of Building
Societies 1942 AD 27, fit 32.
[33] In this cmTent application, the issue that requires determination for the
declaratory order to be granted in my discretion is based on the dispute over the
existence of some legal right or entitlement on acquisition of the immovable
property PSBM (in liquidation), in order for me to grant the declaratory order in
favour of the applicants, this Court should be satisfied that:
(a) the applicants have an existing, future or contingent right or obligation in
the PSBM property in liquidation , if so, what legal right do they have to prove
their direct and substantial interest in the subject matter (the PSBM in
liquidation) .
3 Ex parte Noriskin 1962 (I) SA 856 (D).
4 Milani et al v SA Medical and Dental Council et al 1990 ( I) SA 899 (T) at 9020.
5 2005 (6) SA 205 (SCA) at 2 13 E-G.
II
(b) the applicants' events, which occurred in the past, such events, if they rise
to a cause of action, would entitle the applicant to an appropriate remedy.
ANALYSIS
WHETHER THE DECLARATORY ORDER SHOULD BE GRANTED
(34] The applicant has approached this Court seeking a declaratory order to the
effect to Clause 1-5 of the Motion.
[35] It is common cause that the applicant's alleged vindicative right in respect
of the PSBM property, which arose from six years ago in 2017, when Mrs Maria
Mokoena , a member in second applicant's church intended to acquire the
immovable property situated at Farm 200, Waterkloof Rustenburg, North West
Province , on behalf of the second applicant, while Prophet Shepherd Bushiri
Ministries NPC will hold the nudum dominium of the property on behalf of the
second applicant. In 2018 the PSBM was registered at Registry of Deeds under
the name of PSBM, and registration still exists.
[36] The legal rule for a vindicatory right is often exercised through the rei
vindication, a legal remedy that allows an owner to reclaim physical property
unlawfully held by someone else, the property must exist and be identifiable and
the person you are taking action against must be in actual control of the property
at the time the claim is instituted, this is applicant's claim in its papers.
[3 7] The first applicant contends that the second applicant is true owner of
PSBM immovable property they wish to reclaim, second applicant is currently
using the premises for its church congregants, the respondents who are currently
in possession of the property as joint liquidators must hand over the immovable
property to them, which is a reason they sought declaratory order to vindicate the
second applicant's rights over the property as per motion.
12
[38] The reasons that qualifies second applicant to be the true owner of the
immovable PSBM, are already set out in their submissions, I must emphasize
that these events occurred in the past, way back 2017 that is six years from now,
these events are the applicant's cause of action for the order sought, Mrs Maria
Mokoena ultimately acquired the property from Pastor Shepherd Bushiri
Ministries by , and became the beneficial owner of the PBSM, in an oral
agreement that was concluded between the parties involved, there is no offer of
purchase or sale of agreement that was concluded.
[39] This court is in agreement with the Respondents where there is a sale of
property, in particular where there are transfer duties involved, there is an Title
Deed in existence, the owners must prove the ownership in terms of Section 2
(1) of Alienation Act of 68 of 19816, in order to be enforceable and be valid in
law as such nothing of that effect in this application, the applicants relied to legal
authority of the DADABHAY v DADABHAY 1981 (3) SA 1039 (A) for the
purposes of their application, in that there was an oral nominee agreement that
existent between the first applicant, Mrs Maria Mokoena, D.E.M Committees
and Resident Pastors of PSBM, they did not need to comply with Section 2 (1)
of Alienation Act 68 of 1981 .
[ 40] This court endorsed Greenberg 's J A's DADABHA Y v DADABHA Y that
the appellant and the respondent entered into oral agreement in terms of which
the respondent agreed to buy an erf from the respondent on behalf of appellant
and as nominee for the appellant, but respondent refused to transfer it when called
upon to do so, a defence was based on s 1 ( 1) of the General Law Amendment
Act 68 of 1957 was dismissed.
6 mandates that no contract for the sale or transfer of land is legally valid unless is reduced to a written deed of
alienation and signed by both parties (or their agents acting under writt en authority) .
13
[41] In South African property and contract of law, the DADABHAY case is
seminal Appellate division (now Supreme Court of Appeal) judgement
establishing that verbal nominee agreements for the ownership of immovable
property are legally valid and enforceable, provided they do not involve the direct
transfer or alienation of land. This precedent was affirmed in Loggenberg and
Others v Maree7.
[ 42] In reference to the above even though there was no written contract
between, the D.E.M Committees, Resident Pastor and Mrs Maria Mokoena , their
oral nominee agreement had an objective approach on words that remain the first
source of reference, the intentions of Mrs Maria Mokoena to purchase the
immovable property and PSBM hold nudum dominium of the property on behalf
of the second applicant until second applicant is registered as N.O.P, the Court
had to examine those facts, context in order to determine what the parties
intended88 for declaratory ruling.
[43] In examining the facts in what Mr Maria Mokoena intended to purchase
the property on behalf of the second applicant, submits proof of registration of
second applicant as N.O.P on 5 July 2025 but did not submit evidence to this
court in its founding affidavit how the property PSBM was acquired.
[ 44] In their replying affidavit the redacted bank statements were submitted as
proof that Mrs Maria Mokoena purchased the immovable property, my
observation on the statements was that some transactions were intentionally
removed, only amounts reflecting deposits received by Mrs Maria Mokoena,
some from Mary, and transactions to Dup West Incorporated, conveyancers for
PSBM.
7 (286/17) [2018] ZASCA 24.
8 Nvartis v Maphili 2016 (I) SA 5 18 (SCA) at para 28.
14
[ 45] I must stress that these redacted statements are regrettably rejected by this
Court as they do not hold any water to my ruling, they don't prove any beneficial
ownership by the second applicant.
[ 46] Moving on this Court cannot ignore that the immovable property is still in
existence and identifiable under the new name of Provincial Support Business
Management NPC (in liquidation) , the name of previous Prophet Shepherd
Bushiri Ministries NPC was changed on 06 February 2024 because of the
surrounding circumstances of fraud, rape and money laundering, the same
property the applicant requests its ownership to be vindicated to second applicant ,
who presented redacted bank statements to this Court, as proof of the purchase
ofthe PSBM.
[47] I find that, at the time the second applicant was registered as an N.O.P in
PSBM property was already transferred by Conveyancers from R J and E A
Botha to PSBM in April 2018, giving ownership to PSBM, leaving the applicants
with no real right or vindicative right to reclaim the immovable property.
[48] Dadabhay case clearly states that the verbal nommee agreement for
ownership of immovable is binding , provided they do not involve direct transfer
of the immovable property, in the circumstances of the current application the
conveyancers directly transferred the immovable prope1ty from Botha to PSBM,
which in my view, the PSBM directly purchased the property from the Botha's
and transferred it at the time there is oral nominee agreement that second
applicant will take ownership as they are registered as N.O.P.
[ 49] In my consideration view, it is clear that there was a mistrust between the
parties, Mrs Maria Mokoena did not purchase the immovable property, same she
could not bring the evidence to this court. The second applicant is not the true
15
owner of the immovable property PSBM. It is evident from their papers the Deed
of Transfer indeed occurred between R J and E A Botha and PSBM on 10 April
2018. Mrs Maria Mokoena's intentions to be owner of immovable property
PSBM extinguished on 10 April 2018 when the immovable property was
transferred by PSBM conveyancers and register in PSBM.
[50] I am of the view that soon after their oral nommee agreement was
concluded, the payments should have been paid to the original owners R J and E
A Botha, second applicant should have registered its company as a N.O.P as
earlier, however, the PSBM the nominee, paid those transfer as demonstrated by
Invoices from Conveyancer and transfer occurred.
[51] The respondents, the joint liquidators are not in unlawful possession of the
immovable property PSBM, by virtue of an Order, granted in the High Court,
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, under case number 107949/2023, on 06
February 2024, their legal duty is to wind - up the estate of immovable property
PSBM considering the crucial circumstances surrounding it. registered under
Pastor Shepherd, this Court does not have jurisdiction to overturn that Order.
REASONS FOR THE ORDER
[52] It is my considered view that the second applicant does not have any
vindicative rights over the immovable property Provincial Support Business
Management NPC (IN LIQUIDATION) , it is evident from their papers that the
second applicant seek to acquire ownership of the property because their counter
parts (the extradited Pastor Shepherd Bushiri and his wife Mary Bushiri) are not
in South Africa to reclaim their property (in liquidation).
[53] The second applicant registered its company on 5 July 2025 to save the
PSBM liquidation proceedings, Mrs Maria Mokoena's intentions with its events
16
occurred in 2017, giving rise to second applicant's cause of action, are not good
intentions, I am of the view that there intentions were there to protect interest of
(the extradited Pastor Shepherd Bushiri and his wife Mary Bushiri) it will not be
in the interest of justice to grant the order sought under the surrounding
circumstances, accordingly, the applicants application stands to fail.
[54] The second applicant does not have any existing, future or contingent right
or obligation in the PSBM immovable property (in liquidation), let alone
substantial interest in the subject matter (the PSBM in liquidation). Its
appropriate remedy after receiving advertisements for the liquidation of PSBM,
was to opt for the purchase of the immovable property .
[55] In my view, it is for the joint liquidators to sell the immovable property
PSBM by powers vested to them as per Resolutions of the joint liquidation of the
company resolved on 25 September 2025.
COSTS
[ 56] The application is opposed both parties seek costs, in which event costs
shall be borne jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.
[57] The general rule in matters of costs is that the successful party should be
given costs. In dete1mining who the successful party is, the court looks to the
substance and not the form of the judgement.
[58] The respondent in this matter is successful in the mam application,
accordingly, the applicant should pay the respondents costs, both junior and
senior counsels on Scale C.
17
ORDER
[59] In conclusion, I make the following order:
59.1 The applicant's application for the declaratory order is dismissed;
59.2 The applicant shall pay the Respondent's, both Junior and
Seniors 'counsels' costs in tenns of Scale B.
B.F.MNYOVU
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH THE COURT
NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
Instructed by:
For the respondents:
Instructed by:
Adv. L. Hollander
Mathopo Attorneys Inc.
Clo Sethunyane Attorneys
MMABATHO
Adv. N. Horn with him Adv. K. Mitchell
Oosthuizen Caine Inc
Clo Labuschagne Attorneys
MAHIKENG
18