The fight over the legacy and millions of the late leader of the International Pentecost Holiness Church Glayton Modise continues in dramatic fashion.

Modise's second wife, Nosipho Tafu, failed in her legal bid to keep Modise's first wife Miriam Modise and her son Tshepiso Modise at bay.
Tafu, popularly known as Mmamohau, had applied for an interim protection order against the two, claiming they were bullying her and wanted to kill her.
But the courts declined to make the order permanent as Miriam and her son have already vacated the church's headquarters and the family's main home in Zuurbekom, of Johannesburg.
Speaking to Sunday World this week, Mmamohau said: "Come on man, there are bigger stories out there and you are calling me about a protection order?
"I know who is behind this story, you received a brown envelope. Tshepiso and Miriam are behind this. I don't want to comment in your stupid story, write anything you want."
IPHC spokesman Freddie Ramaphakela, speaking on behalf of Tshepiso and his mother, said the law had taken its course.
"We don't contemplate any legal action against Ms Tafu. Peace, stability and reconciliation reigns supreme and takes precedence to all, including personal feelings.
"Nothing prohibits us from living together with anyone in a peaceful environment as it is in such an environment that God resides."
In her affidavit, Mmamohau claimed Tshepiso was a violent and gun-crazy man.
"I declare that I would like to apply for a protection order against Miriam Modise who is emotionally, verbally, psychologically abusing me. She is intimidating me, harasses me and stalks me. She also threatens to kill me. All these she does together with her son Tshepiso Modise. I am scared and fear for my wellbeing.
"I know he possess firearm as he threatened to shoot me one night in January 2016 (sic)," she wrote.
Mmamohau also claimed they attacked her on social media and their henchmen threatened her.
"On the 4th March 2016 complainant received threatening call from anonymous person with number [withheld].
"The life of the complainant is in imminent danger due to the fact that the respondent is always stalking the complainant when she leaves premises.
"Respondent is using other persons to watch the movements of the complainant from home to wherever she might be going. Complainant has bodyguards because of the danger she is facing," the documents said.