Vodacom had approached the Constitutional Court after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled against the mobile operator and amended a previous High Court order in favour of Makate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In dismissing the appeal, the SCA ordered that Vodacom must pay between 5% and 7.5% of the voice revenue that Please Call Me generated over 18 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It also ruled that Vodacom must use Makate\u2019s models to calculate the appropriate amount and add interest over the period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Vodacom applied to the Constitutional Court to appeal the SCA\u2019s order, arguing that the judges concurring with the majority ruling had failed to consider critical evidence, denying its right to a fair trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The mobile operator also argued that the SCA\u2019s order was unenforceable, as it created a R29 billion to R63 billion range for the compensation. Additionally, it was unclear how interest should be calculated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Constitutional Court found in favour of Vodacom, delivering a scathing judgment against the Supreme Court for presiding over a \u201ctotal failure of justice\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, who retired on the day he delivered the unanimous ruling, said he and his fellow judges agonised over the issues presented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Madlanga said contemplating the possibility of such total failure by a superior court was new ground within South Africa\u2019s jurisprudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regarding the costs of Vodacom\u2019s appeal in the Constitutional Court and Makate\u2019s opposition to it, Madlanga\u2019s ruling stated that a costs order must follow the result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cVodacom asked for costs of three counsel. Having regard to the size of the record, the complexity and novelty of the issues and the very large amount at stake, I think that is a fair and just request.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Madlanga noted that Makate himself saw need to take the precaution of having three counsel appear before the apex court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHis written argument was settled by six counsel, three of whom were silks. So, costs of three counsel will be awarded.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, the R13 million legal bill Makate has been saddled with is for six counsel and the preparatory work that went into their appearance before the Constitutional Court for the hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Makate\u2019s warning<\/h2>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mybroadband.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Please-Call-Me-on-old-iPhone-scaled-1.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nMakate said it was unfair for the Constitutional Court to award costs in favour of Vodacom when he had to defend two amicus curiae<\/em> applications from Vodacom shareholders: Yebo Yethu and Vodafone.<\/p>\n\n\n\nHe said the Constitutional Court had dismissed both applications but did not award costs in his favour in those instances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to Makate, the decision to award costs against him will send a chilling message to the little guy who considers challenging giants like Vodacom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Makate\u2019s litigation against Vodacom dates back to 2008<\/a> after he sent letters of demand claiming he was promised compensation for his role in Please Call Me the year before.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSeven years prior to going on the offensive, while working as a trainee accountant at Vodacom, he pitched the idea of a method to \u201cbuzz\u201d someone else\u2019s phone without airtime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a memo dated 21 November 2000, Makate wrote to a superior about his idea, calling it the \u201cbuzzing option\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From missed calls to Call Mes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mybroadband.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Vodacom-communique-please-call-me-makate-V.jpg\")
<\/a>Vodacom communique recognising Nkosana Kenneth Makate for his Please Call Me idea (Click to enlarge)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nAccording to an internal Vodacom newsletter, his idea was ultimately developed into Please Call Me, which launched on the Vodacom network in 2001 \u2014 almost three months after MTN.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although Makate was not involved in the development or launch of the product (and compelling evidence that MTN was actually the original inventor<\/a> of \u201cCall Me\u201d), he said he was promised compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nMakate said it was unfair for the Constitutional Court to award costs in favour of Vodacom when he had to defend two amicus curiae<\/em> applications from Vodacom shareholders: Yebo Yethu and Vodafone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He said the Constitutional Court had dismissed both applications but did not award costs in his favour in those instances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Makate, the decision to award costs against him will send a chilling message to the little guy who considers challenging giants like Vodacom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Makate\u2019s litigation against Vodacom dates back to 2008<\/a> after he sent letters of demand claiming he was promised compensation for his role in Please Call Me the year before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Seven years prior to going on the offensive, while working as a trainee accountant at Vodacom, he pitched the idea of a method to \u201cbuzz\u201d someone else\u2019s phone without airtime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a memo dated 21 November 2000, Makate wrote to a superior about his idea, calling it the \u201cbuzzing option\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to an internal Vodacom newsletter, his idea was ultimately developed into Please Call Me, which launched on the Vodacom network in 2001 \u2014 almost three months after MTN.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although Makate was not involved in the development or launch of the product (and compelling evidence that MTN was actually the original inventor<\/a> of \u201cCall Me\u201d), he said he was promised compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\nFrom missed calls to Call Mes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/a>