Nkosana Makate claims that he no longer needs the documents he previously requested from Vodacom to determine how much the mobile operator owes him for the Please Call Me idea he claims to have generated.
Vodacom called this assertion “astonishing” considering Makate’s previous arguments that the documents were extremely important for the applicant’s case.
The court previously ordered Vodacom to provide Makate with the relevant information in its possession so that he could calculate how much he believes he is owed.
Vodacom and Makate have been battling in court over the amount of information the former actually has in this regard, with Makate alleging Vodacom has more information than it admits.
In court documents, Makate said he still believe that Vodacom is not being honest about this information, but said he can make his case without these documents.
“In order to finalise the review, I instructed my legal team to agree with Vodacom that the interlocutory applications should not proceed and that I shall proceed to supplement my founding papers in the review herein….” said Makate.
He added that Vodacom wished to extend the litigation process through these interlocutory applications, whereas by skipping the aforementioned process he could speed up the primary legal battle.
“I am advised that I do not have to enter the fray of the Rule 42 application,” said Makate.
“I am able to prove my case on the evidence at hand. However, this does not preclude me from pointing out Vodacom’s reprehensible behaviour.”
“Vodacom’s obdurate refusal to properly and fully disclose revenue earned from PCMs has continued,” he said.
Vodacom responded in its own legal papers by noting that Makate was refusing to formally abandon the application to receive these documents from Vodacom despite stating under oath that he does not require them.
It argued that this means Makate “arrogates for himself an entitlement to draw adverse inferences, arising therefrom, at some later stage.”
“The duplicitous conduct of the applicant in refusing to formally concede to the relief that the second respondent seeks whilst seeking to gain great mileage, therefrom, should not be countenanced.”
Vodacom noted it had addressed correspondence to Makate’s attorneys which asked why Makate had not filed a notice of abandonment regarding the orders granted regarding the provision of these documents.
The mobile provider claimed it never received a response.
Vodacom also highlighted that Makate and his team had previously said that not receiving the documents would severely hamper their preparations for the main application.
“The applicant now astonishingly asserts that he no longer requires the documentation,” said Vodacom.
It therefore requested that it receive the costs of the original application filed by Makate regarding the provision of documents.
Makate’s legal representatives told MyBroadband that Makate wants to proceed with the finalisation of the review of the CEO’s determination, which it said is “the essence of the dispute.”
“It seems as if Vodacom wants to focus on interlocutory issues which are not central to the real dispute of the reasonable amount to be paid,” said Makate’s legal team.
“This tendency is the reason why this matter has been dragging on for more than four years since the Constitutional Court’s decision.”