A Carletonville church has been interdicted from using the name and property of its founder – People of His Way Ministry (PHWM).
The Heidelberg-based PHWM had been embroiled in the unholy tiff with its branch in Carletonville since 2021. This was when differences about how the branch ran its affairs could not be resolved. And this forced the parties to ask the court to intervene.
Court orders return of books, keys and cease operating uber the name
The Pretoria High Court recently ordered that the branch committee stop operating under the PHWM name. It also ordered them to stop collecting funds from congregants.
They were also ordered to give all banking records. All books and keys to the branch building to PHWM in Heidelberg, south east of Johannesburg were also to be returned.
At the root of this dispute, Sunday World understands, is money.
According to court documents, PHWM was formed in 2000. But it was approved by the Department of Social Development as a non-profit organisation in 2011.
Changes were made without following procedure
Later, PHWM formed a satellite in Carletonville, which also operated under the PHWM.
However, in 2019 the founder fell ill and appointed another person to lead the executive committee that ran the branch.
The appointee reportedly took it upon themselves to make changes to the committee. This they did without consultation with and approval of the mother church. And this had caused dissatisfaction and discontentment in Heidelberg. They feared that their branch was being hijacked for profit.
In April 2021, the executive committees of Heidelberg and Carletonville met but despite their candid discussion their conflict remained unresolved.
Series of complaints around the running of the church
“The applicant [Heidelberg] was made aware that certain members of the branch church had opened an account. …This was done without its knowledge, consent, or authority. And that they utilised their own constitution,” read the court papers.
The respondents claimed that they only opened the bank account because they received money from the public.
They said they approached the bank and presented the constitution they drafted without engaging the main church. And further said that they operate the bank account in total exclusion on the applicant.
The applicant argued that it owned the immovable property. This refers to the building used by respondents for worship and to conduct business.
Despite operating this separate bank account, the respondents also failed to pay their municipal account. And this forced the applicant to settle the R8,000 debt.
