You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App
Join our mailing list to receive top business news every weekday morning.

Please Call Me inventor’s last-ditch Constitutional Court attempt

Implicating Vodacom for compensation worth billions.

Nkosana Makate, the man who is suing telecommunications giant Vodacom for the Please Call Me invention is upbeat that his Constitutional Court bid might bear fruit.

After the South Gauteng High Court last year dismissed Makate’s case, he is now looking at the highest court in South Africa to appeal the High Court’s decision.

In March Makate’s case suffered another blow when the Supreme Court of Appeal rejected Makate’s application for leave to appeal on the basis that his prospects for success were limited.

In his affidavit, Makate claims that the High Court denied him the right of access to court under section 34 of the Constitution and the right to property in section 25.

Read Makate’s affidavit here.

“In conducting itself as it did, the High Court undermined my right… to have my dispute with Vodacom ‘decided in a fair public hearing before a court’. It reached a conclusion that precluded me from having the relevant legal and factual issues decided in my favour – even though they had been raised on the pleadings,” he says.

On section 25, Makate says he was “deprived” of the invention and the right to claim money for it “even while Vodacom continues to benefit to the tune of many billions of rand.”

Makate also suggests that the court needs to lay down a principle on the fact that the parties are in an unequal bargaining position.

In 2000, Makate was a trainee accountant for Vodacom when he claims to have invented Please Call Me, a free service which enables a user without airtime to send a text to be called back. Makate says the idea was borne out of his long distance relationship with his then girlfriend (now wife) who was unable to call him as she could not afford to buy airtime.

When the idea hit, Makate spoke to Vodacom’s director on the board and head of product development at the time, Philip Geissler, as “he was the obvious person to speak to given his position.”

“He was the man who approved new products within Vodacom and oversaw and managed their roll-out,” he says.

He says Geissler agreed to pay him a share of the revenues Vodacom would generate from the innovation if it was technically and financially viable.

Makate says the “lucrative” innovation generated billions for Vodacom over the years. He estimates that the invention, since its inception in 2001, has generated about R70 billion for Vodacom and he wants a 15% cut of the profit share.

“Vodacom has consistently breached its agreement with me by failing to pay me any share of its revenues or any on-going remuneration for its continued use of the product. Every month passes as Vodacom earns more revenue from my invention, a fresh breach occurs and a fresh debt comes into existence.”

The High Court case, presided by Judge Phillip Coppin concluded that Makate had successfully proved the remuneration agreement between him and Geissler. However, Coppin dismissed Makate’s claim on the basis that he did not prove that Geissler did have “ostensible authority” to bind Vodacom in an agreement of compensation.

Also the court found that Makate’s claim against Vodacom had expired (a term known in legal circles as prescription), as he did not file the claim within three years of Vodacom going to market with Please Call Me. Makate pursued his initial court bid in 2008.

“My claim against Vodacom had prescribed notwithstanding the fact that my claim is an on-going one and that at best only part of my claim for the initial period could have been hit by prescription,” he says.

Makate further questions the High Court’s interpretation of ostensible authority, as he believes it “misunderstood the legal principles” of the term.

He says the court failed to lay down a principle that ostensibly authority must be considered differently in circumstances where “the parties to the alleged agreement have fundamentally [an] unequal bargaining power.”

Vodacom responds

Nkateko Nyoka, chief legal and regulatory officer for Vodacom says Makate’s leave to appeal should be dismissed mainly on two grounds – misinterpretation of ostensible authority and prescription. Read Vodacom’s affidavit here.

Vodacom says the Makate waited eight years before instituting proceedings against the company, which means his claim has already expired (prescription). It further argues that no official at Vodacom had the actual or ostensible authority to bind Vodacom in a compensation agreement.

Vodacom says it was against the policy and practice of the company to offer employees additional remuneration and enter into revenue shares with employees. Vodacom’s agreements had to be in writing, but “Makate never obtained a written agreement or even a written confirmation of his alleged oral agreement.” It adds that all agreements need to be approved by the legal department – which was not the case with Makate.

“Consequently, with no reliance being placed on actual authority and no pleading of ostensible authority, the contractual claim must necessary fail and Makate on this ground alone has no prospect of success on appeal,” it says.

On the unequal bargaining position argument between Makate and Vodacom, the company labels it as “an attempt to infuse constitutionality into a non-constitutional issue.”

The price of the invention (with no technical solution) would have been worth “a few thousand rand.” “Thus, the claim [for compensation into billions] is ill-founded and grossly inflated,” it says.

The Constitutional Court could give a ruling on the appeal in May.

Get access to Moneyweb's financial intelligence and support quality journalism for only
R63/month or R630/year.
Sign up here, cancel at any time.



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


1. When I was working for different companies my employment contract always stated that any invention I made while there would be the property of the company. In one case it specificly mentioned non-work related inventions and/or inventions done in my private time. I do not know how easily this clause could be enforced.
2. There were several similar “inventions” which pre-date Please Call Me.

I trust the Con Court denies this guy any revenue from this obnoxious facility – it should have been restricted to only nominated accounts. In its current form any idiot trying to apply ambush marketing uses this facility. I delete every such message that I receive with this please call me , my kids have a specific text message for emergencies

I think the guy who he should be suing is Geissler, he’s the one who made the rediculous claim that he will get a portion of the profits…

That would be very difficult to institute as Giessler was/is a representative of Vodacom and as such the company becomes liable for the actions of its employees, provided he did not exceed his authority level. The fact that Vodacom are fighting this infers that he did not exceed his authority otherwise they would have dumped him long ago and told this fellow to sue him in his private capacity

In the good old days before cellphones, it was called “Reverse charge” call. The only difference here is you cut out the operator.

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: