- Court granted an urgent interim interdict stopping Abel Erasmus and Vee Erasmus from presenting themselves as representatives of Paws Haven NPC.
- Judge Mfenyana ruled that a non-profit company is governed by its board of directors and not a management committee.
- Respondents were also ordered to pay punitive legal costs after attempting to access the organisation’s bank account and act in its name.
A dispute over the leadership of a busy animal rescue organisation has prompted the High Court in Mahikeng to intervene, temporarily halting two individuals from presenting themselves as decision-makers for Paws Haven NPC.
The case arose when Paws Haven NPC and its director, Annelize van der Westhuizen, urgently approached the court for protection against Abel Erasmus and Vee Erasmus. It was alleged that the pair were attempting to unlawfully take control of the organisation and act as its representatives.
Judge S Mfenyana agreed that the applicants had met the requirements for urgent relief and issued an interim interdict, barring the respondents from representing the organisation or making decisions in its name until further legal proceedings.
Background to the dispute
Paws Haven NPC, registered as a non-profit company in July 2025 after previously operating as an NPO, cares for approximately 400 dogs and 300 cats. It relies heavily on donations and sponsors to continue rescuing, caring for, and rehoming animals.
According to the court papers, Abel Erasmus initially became involved with Paws Haven while it was still an NPO, offering advice about company registration. Vee Erasmus volunteered with the organisation’s work with free-roaming cats.
Tensions reportedly arose after the transition to an NPC, with claims that Abel Erasmus became increasingly controlling and insisted on attending internal staff meetings. Matters escalated in October 2025, when he called a meeting that attempted to remove Van der Westhuizen as chairperson and install Vee Erasmus in her place. The applicants argued that the meeting was invalid due to improper notice and lack of a quorum.
Following this, the board of directors decided to dissolve the management committee that had existed under the former NPO structure.
Urgent application triggered by alleged overreach
The applicants said they were forced to seek urgent court intervention after the respondents continued to act as if they had authority, despite the committee’s dissolution. They alleged that Abel Erasmus tried to access the organisation’s Nedbank account and even instructed a bank official to freeze it. The respondents also allegedly tried to hire new staff on behalf of Paws Haven NPC.
Judge Mfenyana noted that Abel Erasmus did not deny these actions but tried to justify them. The court regarded these attempts as trying to seize control of the organisation’s finances and operations.
The judge described the conduct as an attempt to “hijack” the organisation’s bank account and warned that such actions created a real risk of confusion for third parties, who might believe the respondents had legal authority.
The judgment stated, “It is only a matter of time before an innocent third party is lured into the confusion created by the respondents.”
Governance and authority in question
The respondents argued that the organisation’s constitution gave the management committee the right to make decisions. The court rejected this, emphasising that under the Companies Act, only the board of directors governs a non-profit company. Judge Mfenyana stated, “The governing body of a non-profit company is the board of directors,” and made it clear that the Act does not permit a committee to override the board’s authority.
The court found that the respondents were not directors and that their prior involvement was limited to the now-defunct management committee. The judge added that even if the committee still existed, it would not have the power to run the company or overrule its board.
Allegations of intimidation and disruption
The applicants also accused the respondents of intimidating staff, posting hostile messages online, and interfering with relationships with stakeholders such as the local municipality. Judge Mfenyana affirmed that the directors had the right to operate the organisation free from harassment or intimidation. The court also noted that freezing the bank account would harm not just the directors, but also employees and the hundreds of animals depending on Paws Haven.
Judge Mfenyana granted an extensive interim interdict, barring the respondents from claiming to be directors or committee members, making decisions, contacting staff or stakeholders about the organisation’s affairs, convening meetings or entering the premises. Any decisions made by the respondents on behalf of Paws Haven were declared invalid.
The order will remain in place until the court resolves the question of the organisation’s constitution. The judge also ordered the respondents to pay the legal costs of the urgent application on the punitive attorney-and-client scale.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
