The long-running legal battle between Vodacom and Nkosana Makate, the inventor of the “Please Call Me” (PCM) service, will reach the Constitutional Court on 21 November 2024.
In a notice of set down, the top court said: “Please take notice that the above matter has been set down for hearing on Thursday, 21 November 2024 at 10h00.”
Vodacom is seeking to appeal a previous ruling that ordered the company to pay Makate “fair compensation” for his idea, which was developed in 2001 while he was employed at the company. Despite the service generating significant revenue, Makate has been fighting for over two decades to receive appropriate payment.
In 2016, the Constitutional Court confirmed Makate as the inventor of PCM and entitled him to compensation. Vodacom’s CEO, Shameel Joosub, initially offered R47 million, which Makate rejected, considering it inadequate.
In 2022, the Gauteng High Court ruled against Vodacom’s settlement proposal, ordering a review. Vodacom appealed, but the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the case earlier this year, leading to the upcoming Constitutional Court hearing.
Makate’s pursuit of fair compensation continues as the case heads back to the highest court.
Also read: GUGU LOURIE: Top court must assert authority with final judgment in Makate vs Vodacom case
Vodafone, the global telco based in London, has hit a legal stumbling block in its attempt to intervene in the long-running court dispute between Vodacom and Nkosana Makate, the creator of the “Please Call Me” service.
Vodafone and Vodacom maintain a close relationship. Vodafone holds a significant stake in Vodacom. As of 2024, Vodafone owns 60.5% of Vodacom.
Vodafone’s request to join the case as Amicus curiae (a friend of the court) was denied, marking the latest twist in the drawn-out battle over compensation for the widely-used messaging innovation.
The letter to Vodafone reads in part: “The Constitutional Court has considered the application for admission as amicus curiae. It has concluded that the application should be dismissed as no case has been made out for admissionas amicus curiae. The Court has decided not to award costs.”