Does Nkosana Makate deserve R29-billion?

Does Nkosana Makate deserve R29-billion?

  • Yes

    Votes: 52 15.7%

  • No

    Votes: 264 79.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 4.8%
  • Total voters
    332
stefan9 said:
Yes. Vodacom made the offer. Can't reneg on such deals. The principle is clear. The only reason people have an issue is cause the amount.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but in my opinion, if VC made tens or hundreds of billions over these years, then the compensation amount will be fair too. VC had more than enough time to ensure the payout of the compensation as promised.
 
Bewlen said:
So he has the evidence that someone who lacked the authority to agree to compensation an any way, shape or form, agreed to the compensation?

Scenario: I'm buddies with a director. He agrees to a revenue-share agreement with myself, a administrative office worker. I sue the company into liquidation, walk out with their liquidated worth in my bank account and a huge smile. The director gets half of course, under the table...
Click to expand...
Then the director gets sued and possibly criminally prosecuted for acting against the interests of the company and violating his fiduciary duty to that company. Giving a revenue share of all revenue to an admin worker is patantly ludicrous.

Giving a revenue share of a particular product to the inventor of said product doesn't seem unreasonable or unfair in the slightest.
 
Bewlen said:
The "agreement" in place, was a commitment made by a senior manager - the Head of Product Development. Sure, cool title and all, but not a position that has any authority to award revenue share agreements. If you have ever been involved in projects dealing with mega-corporations, you would know the amount of red tape and bureaucracy involved in getting anything done, getting any commercials signed off is a monstrous endeavour. Any senior manager "promising" any form of revenue share, is simply ridiculous, and very far removed from the authority of such a "senior manager". If this was viable, there would be no need to have a board for any company. We can simply let all "senior managers" run all the companies in the country.

Imagine "senior managers" everywhere, starting to dole out revenue-share agreements over a cup of coffee at the water cooler. Can you imagine that? Just put everything aside and look at the situation logically, just apply the logic.

Would this be at all sustainable?
Click to expand...

That’s a different argument ie was the person who promised him the revenue share entitled to do so. I’m surprised that Vodacom didn’t take this line up front* - should have been a slam dunk for them if this was the case.

* oh wait, they did….and lost the argument
 
Last edited:
Cray said:
Then the director gets sued and possibly criminally prosecuted for acting against the interests of the company and violating his fiduciary duty to that company. Giving a revenue share of all revenue to an admin worker is patantly ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. The fact you keep on pressing, is exactly the scenario I have described. Someone who does not have the authority to enter into agreement, has done exactly that. Now that it "seems" ludicrous, you want to turn on the "let's be reasonable" taps. In a R29billion payment for 500 words. Sorry, the "reasonable" train has left your station long ago. R29billion, 500 words, no authorized contract.

Cray said:
Giving a revenue share of a particular product to the inventor of said product doesn't seem unreasonable or unfair in the slightest.
Click to expand...
See above.
 
Neuk_ said:
I have no issue with him being 'rewarded' for 'raising' the idea with Vodacom and being 'promised' to be rewarded but R29b is a ridiculous amount.
Click to expand...

Why? He was clever enough to get a ‘revenue share’ deal ‘agreed’.

I’m sure that at the time management had no idea how popular it would be and thought he’d get a couple of grand off it.
 
rvZA said:
No, it is not a landmark case in my opinion. There have been many, many cases dealt with based on oral agreements. They are valid agreements in SA law. I think VC just tried, initially, to get it thrown out or force Makate to give up financially, but failed.
Click to expand...
In a previous thread, I posted the definition of landmark - and looking at the whole case, I also believe this is a landmark case.
 
I do think he deserves some payout, but 29 billion rand does seem a bit too much. I am interested to see what the highest court in the land rules on this matter (I think Vodacom is appealing the decision). The 47 million rand figure was a decent offering.

In general, all work that is done during the time and scope of employment with an employer belongs to the employer - most employment contracts have a clause which state this. Work, which is done outside of employment, and does not "compete" with the employer, and does not use any resources from your employer should be above board.
 
Bewlen said:
Doesn't matter. The fact you keep on pressing, is exactly the scenario I have described. Someone who does not have the authority to enter into agreement, has done exactly that.
Click to expand...
Except that the courts have ruled that he did have the authority, and I contend that a director should have the authority to negotiate agreements on behalf of the company, some might require approval at the board level but being a director does give you broad authority to make decisions and negotiate on behalf of the company. It's odd that your argument is still the same as when you thought he was just a senior manager.

Also, you keep ignoring that they accepted that it was his idea, why did they greenlight the process if there was no general acceptance in place,or did Vodacom just hope that they could lie to him and profit unfairly off his idea?
 
He deserves it. It would not have been such a big deal if, to my understanding, Vodacom stuck by the initial agreement. He had enough of a case and patience to take the issue to court. Big ups to him.

I'm thinking about whether us Voda customers will see price increases to cover this amount owed to him.
 
koeks525 said:
I do think he deserves some payout, but 29 billion rand does seem a bit too much. I am interested to see what the highest court in the land rules on this matter (I think Vodacom is appealing the decision). The 47 million rand figure was a decent offering.

In general, all work that is done during the time and scope of employment with an employer belongs to the employer - most employment contracts have a clause which state this. Work, which is done outside of employment, and does not "compete" with the employer, and does not use any resources from your employer should be above board.
Click to expand...
It all depends on what revenue VC generated over the years. He was promised revenue share and the courts accepted it.

Would you be happy if your company promised you revenue share, they make tens of billions and years later say no, they don't want to share revenue with you and send you off with R40m?
 
rvZA said:
It all depends on what revenue VC generated over the years. He was promised revenue share and the courts accepted it.

Would you be happy if your company promised you revenue share, they make tens of billions and years later say no, they don't want to share revenue with you and send you off with R40m?
Click to expand...

It would depend on the terms of the revenue share / terms of agreement. This document/documentation should clearly outline some figures. If tangible figures were promised (i.e.: 5% of total revenue during X number of years, etc), and the 47 million is substantially lower than the terms of agreement, I would certainly go fight for more.

In all honesty, corporate life is like this; you work too hard, you get shafted.

I will say that I haven't the court papers and associated documentation to this case, so maybe it is a bit invalid of me to make an opinion before commenting.
 
This whole saga is a testament to taking court cases serious. Tough lesson for VC, but a reminder that it is very difficult to overturn or ignore / delay a court decision reasoned on the evidence supplied by both parties.

The court decided what is fair, because the two parties could not get to ab agreement. Both parties argued their reasons. The court decided. Done, finished, fair.

Arguing fairness or entitledness after the fact is like fighting over spilt milk. It is done: VC spilt the milk
 
You work for a company for a wage, anything you create during working hours is for the benefit of the company. He's a con man and been influenced by greed and charlatans
 
Bigjay84 said:
You work for a company for a wage, anything you create during working hours is for the benefit of the company. He's a con man and been influenced by greed and charlatans
Click to expand...
He didn't create it during working hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter