Vodacom calculations show Supreme Court wants it to pay Makate between R29 billion and R63 billion

Why? Vodacom could have ended this years ago before it even started by paying him R1000 20+ years ago they decided not to.

They ****ed around and found out. shame

This.

If they couldn't even fork out a pittance 20 years ago to honour their promise to this employee, then one has to wonder how many other promises to other employees they also refused to honour. Perhaps this is just decades of karma packaged into 1 case. Food for thought.
 
Why? Vodacom could have ended this years ago before it even started by paying him R1000 20+ years ago they decided not to.

They ****ed around and found out. shame
I am not saying Vodacom is blameless. They pee me off as much as any other client of theirs. I make no apologies for greed, hubris, monopolistic practices, stupidity or crony capitalism. And of course you are technically 100% correct. However, sometimes in life it is better to compromise in the interests of long term survival, future growth or simply because the alternative is not an option. This situation is where it is, this is what both parties need to deal with.

For a moment stand back and think what that sum of between R29B and R64B means to Vodacom and subsequently to every Vodacom client. Because whatever sum Vodacom eventually pays, it will come either out of its clients' pockets or reflect in reduced capex, service levels, staffing, training, etc which, again, will hit the company's clients.

So my question is; is it better that blind justice is served, repercussions be damned; or would it be more beneficial for all involved if some compromise could be negotiated where the gold digger claimant and his partisan and weaponised judiciary got a (very large) payout while Vodacom felt the pain of their screw-up/s yet managed to live to fight another day?

In my view, this would be a win (although less than all parties wished for) for Makate, Vodacom, their clients and mobile industry "competition". And the scumsucking judiciary could claim a victory over WMC to boot.
 
Annual reports are massaged to show what the organisation wants them to reflect, so I don't hold much store by them. However, there is not much else to on though.

If Makate gets the higher figure of R64B payout, that's more than half Vodacom's 2023 revenue. That will surely have a significant negative impact on their business.

Screenshot 2024-03-13 at 11.22.45.png
 
I am not saying Vodacom is blameless. They pee me off as much as any other client of theirs. I make no apologies for greed, hubris, monopolistic practices, stupidity or crony capitalism. And of course you are technically 100% correct. However, sometimes in life it is better to compromise in the interests of long term survival, future growth or simply because the alternative is not an option. This situation is where it is, this is what both parties need to deal with.

For a moment stand back and think what that sum of between R29B and R64B means to Vodacom and subsequently to every Vodacom client. Because whatever sum Vodacom eventually pays, it will come either out of its clients' pockets or reflect in reduced capex, service levels, staffing, training, etc which, again, will hit the company's clients.

So my question is; is it better that blind justice is served, repercussions be damned; or would it be more beneficial for all involved if some compromise could be negotiated where the gold digger claimant and his partisan and weaponised judiciary got a (very large) payout while Vodacom felt the pain of their screw-up/s yet managed to live to fight another day?

In my view, this would be a win (although less than all parties wished for) for Makate, Vodacom, their clients and mobile industry "competition". And the scumsucking judiciary could claim a victory over WMC to boot.

So companies should not suffer consequences of their greed because of size? Vodafone is a 18B Pound Company and Vodacom's largest shareholder they can spend some money to fix Vodacom's **** up.

Again they ****ed around and found out. I feel nothing.
 
So companies should not suffer consequences of their greed because of size? Vodafone is a 18B Pound Company and Vodacom's largest shareholder they can spend some money to fix Vodacom's **** up.

Again they ****ed around and found out. I feel nothing.
Again, you are not wrong. Maybe when you cannot make a phone call or have network access when you need it once Vodacom cuts back, you will come back and moan about a lack of service.

Where I live, Vodacom is the only reliable – and often only – network provider. The rural areas would be the first areas they would cut service levels to. That impacts many, many people in this country without city folk necessarily realising it.
 
Only difference is he had a contract with them, you didnt. They even published him as the inventor.

Also do consider you have to meet with the head of Vodacom Product development which he did. His manager isnt the one that promised him something in return it was the Vodacom Head of Product Development. BIG DIFFERENCE

And then Vodacom has been chucking mud at him, lied about the product, and avoided paying him for well over a decade while still using the system.
I agree that he was told he would be compensated and his idea was acknowledged in an internal memo. I don't expect his lawyers to argue their way out of that - but that is what they seem to be trying to do.

What I would expect his lawyers to argue is that at no point (afaik) did they say to him "you will receive x% of the revenue generated from this idea", and therefore he is only entitled to some form of compensation of Vodacoms choosing. It could be a once off bonus, or an nice paid for holiday etc, but somehow they outwardly only seem to be fighting to stop % profit compensation.

Hence my statement about their lawyers being useless, and if I did try sue them for turning my broccoli brown, they would try argue that I don't truly own the broccoli and thus am not entitled to compensation, rather than point out there are no Vodacom towers in my area and I bought the broccoli 3 months ago.
 
So Vodacon have run out of legal arguments and are now going for the emotional angle

Good luck getting a court to buy that one
I don't know what articles you're reading but they're arguing the majority judgement was wrong as the models are flawed.

I agree that he was told he would be compensated and his idea was acknowledged in an internal memo. I don't expect his lawyers to argue their way out of that - but that is what they seem to be trying to do.

What I would expect his lawyers to argue is that at no point (afaik) did they say to him "you will receive x% of the revenue generated from this idea", and therefore he is only entitled to some form of compensation of Vodacoms choosing. It could be a once off bonus, or an nice paid for holiday etc, but somehow they outwardly only seem to be fighting to stop % profit compensation.

Hence my statement about their lawyers being useless, and if I did try sue them for turning my broccoli brown, they would try argue that I don't truly own the broccoli and thus am not entitled to compensation, rather than point out there are no Vodacom towers in my area and I bought the broccoli 3 months ago.
If was discussed in a memo as between 10-15%. Vodacom didn't accept this but the court decided that because there was no agreement on this they would have eventually settled on between 5-7.5%. Everything in this case rests on Vodacom's own documentation and not the arguments of lawyers.
 
I don't know what articles you're reading but they're arguing the majority judgement was wrong as the models are flawed.

I read the one where they said all their BEE shareholders would go broke if they had to pay out
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Swa
Go for it though!

This is Africa and anything is possible.

There is a guy in Namibia also suing after seeing this Vodacom case. He decided he invented data not expiring in 7 days.
Hello my old friend, When Vodacom pays we skip all stages and get to Acceptance
denial-step.gif
 
If was discussed in a memo as between 10-15%. Vodacom didn't accept this but the court decided that because there was no agreement on this they would have eventually settled on between 5-7.5%. Everything in this case rests on Vodacom's own documentation and not the arguments of lawyers.
I've done some digging, and found one of the judgements in the case at https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2016/13.html

From the judgement

Although the applicant had indicated that he wanted 15% of the revenue, the parties deferred their negotiations on the amount to be paid to the applicant for a later date. However, they agreed that in the event of them failing to agree on the amount, Vodacom’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) would determine the amount.

So Makate said he wanted 15%, but Vodacom had never said or agreed to that. This is from the actual court judgement, not from the reported news. The only thing Vodacom agreed to was giving him some revenue share that could be determined by the CEO at a future date. After being ordered by the courts to do this, Shameel Joosub did exactly that and determined the amount owed to Makate.

So I was wrong earlier where I said I didn't think Vodacom had agreed to a revenue share, but they certainly didn't agree to the 15% Makate says he is owed, and from what I can see Vodacom did exactly what was agreed to originally (after being poked by a the law stick).

Makate is just being greedy, but I stand my ground that the Vodacom lawyers seem to be really messing this up.
 
but I stand my ground that the Vodacom lawyers seem to be really messing this up.
Some cases are just harder to work with. They didn't give the lawyers much to work with.

Here's something that isn't mentioned. While the CEO would determine the amount in the event of a deadlock this rested on the assumption Makate could either accept it or reject it and negotiations would then have to continue. By launching without a final agreement Vodacom removed that option so the court ordered that an amount of 5-7.5% was fair which would work out near half a billion over 18 years with interest. That's very similar to Joosub's R47m over 5 years if it was calculated over 18 years with interest. So both parties seem to be using an upper single figure percentile estimate.
 
Annual reports are massaged to show what the organisation wants them to reflect, so I don't hold much store by them. However, there is not much else to on though.

If Makate gets the higher figure of R64B payout, that's more than half Vodacom's 2023 revenue. That will surely have a significant negative impact on their business.

View attachment 1675103
You speak a lot of sense, but I don't care because 80,000 Black Economic Empowerment shareholders of Yebo Yethu are going down with VC. Cnuts who do nothing but be black middlemen.

It's time the parasites fall off, and the only way to do that is to kill the host.
Long Live Vodacom! :D

Go Mykante, go!
 
You speak a lot of sense, but I don't care because 80,000 Black Economic Empowerment shareholders of Yebo Yethu are going down with VC. Cnuts who do nothing but be black middlemen.

It's time the parasites fall off, and the only way to do that is to kill the host.
Long Live Vodacom! :D

Go Mykante, go!
The long and the short of this saga is that it is indicative of a world gone batsh1t crazy on every front.
 
Back
Top