, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Please also note that the author of this document will not be responsible for any plagiarism you
commit.
1. Find the case of Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13; 2016 (6) BCLR
709 (CC); 2016 (4) SA 121 (CC) (26 April 2016) and discuss this case in the prescribed format
(Facts, legal question, reasons for the decision or ratio decidendi and the findings).
The case of Makate v Vodacom serves as a significant example of how legal principles are applied in
a corporate and contractual context. This case highlights fundamental legal issues concerning
contractual agreements, ostensible authority, and the prescription of claims. The ruling in this case
had far-reaching implications for corporate accountability and the protection of intellectual property
rights, setting a precedent for how similar cases should be handled in the future.
Facts
Kenneth Nkosana Makate, a former Vodacom employee, conceived the "Please Call Me" idea, which
he subsequently presented to Philip Geissler, Vodacom's Director of Product Development and
Management. The two reached an agreement that Vodacom would trial the idea and compensate
Makate with a share of the revenue if it proved successful. Vodacom proceeded to launch the "Please
Call Me" service, which generated substantial revenue, amounting to billions. However, despite the
success of the concept, Vodacom did not fulfill its obligation to compensate Makate. Following his
departure from Vodacom, Makate initiated legal proceedings against the company in 2008, seeking
to enforce the oral agreement that had been made between him and Geissler.
Vodacom, in its defense, denied the existence of the agreement and questioned whether Geissler had
the authority to commit the company to such a deal. Furthermore, Vodacom contended that Makate's
claim had prescribed, meaning it was no longer legally enforceable due to the passage of time.
Although the High Court accepted Makate's evidence, it ultimately ruled against him, particularly on
the grounds of ostensible authority and prescription.
Legal Question
Several key legal issues were at the core of the Makate v Vodacom case. The primary question was
whether Vodacom was legally bound by the agreement made between Makate and Geissler. This
issue revolved around whether Geissler, in his capacity as Vodacom’s Director of Product
Development and Management, had the authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of the
company.
Another major legal question pertained to the prescription of Makate’s claim. Vodacom argued that
Makate’s claim was no longer enforceable under the Prescription Act due to the time elapsed
between the inception of the agreement and the initiation of legal proceedings. Subsidiary legal
issues included whether ostensible authority was correctly pleaded by Makate and whether the
common law should be developed to accommodate the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi (Reasons for the Decision)
The court found that the existence of an agreement between Makate and Geissler was well
established based on the available evidence. This finding was significant because it affirmed that
Makate had indeed entered into a legitimate contractual arrangement with Vodacom’s representative.
Please also note that the author of this document will not be responsible for any plagiarism you
commit.
1. Find the case of Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13; 2016 (6) BCLR
709 (CC); 2016 (4) SA 121 (CC) (26 April 2016) and discuss this case in the prescribed format
(Facts, legal question, reasons for the decision or ratio decidendi and the findings).
The case of Makate v Vodacom serves as a significant example of how legal principles are applied in
a corporate and contractual context. This case highlights fundamental legal issues concerning
contractual agreements, ostensible authority, and the prescription of claims. The ruling in this case
had far-reaching implications for corporate accountability and the protection of intellectual property
rights, setting a precedent for how similar cases should be handled in the future.
Facts
Kenneth Nkosana Makate, a former Vodacom employee, conceived the "Please Call Me" idea, which
he subsequently presented to Philip Geissler, Vodacom's Director of Product Development and
Management. The two reached an agreement that Vodacom would trial the idea and compensate
Makate with a share of the revenue if it proved successful. Vodacom proceeded to launch the "Please
Call Me" service, which generated substantial revenue, amounting to billions. However, despite the
success of the concept, Vodacom did not fulfill its obligation to compensate Makate. Following his
departure from Vodacom, Makate initiated legal proceedings against the company in 2008, seeking
to enforce the oral agreement that had been made between him and Geissler.
Vodacom, in its defense, denied the existence of the agreement and questioned whether Geissler had
the authority to commit the company to such a deal. Furthermore, Vodacom contended that Makate's
claim had prescribed, meaning it was no longer legally enforceable due to the passage of time.
Although the High Court accepted Makate's evidence, it ultimately ruled against him, particularly on
the grounds of ostensible authority and prescription.
Legal Question
Several key legal issues were at the core of the Makate v Vodacom case. The primary question was
whether Vodacom was legally bound by the agreement made between Makate and Geissler. This
issue revolved around whether Geissler, in his capacity as Vodacom’s Director of Product
Development and Management, had the authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of the
company.
Another major legal question pertained to the prescription of Makate’s claim. Vodacom argued that
Makate’s claim was no longer enforceable under the Prescription Act due to the time elapsed
between the inception of the agreement and the initiation of legal proceedings. Subsidiary legal
issues included whether ostensible authority was correctly pleaded by Makate and whether the
common law should be developed to accommodate the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi (Reasons for the Decision)
The court found that the existence of an agreement between Makate and Geissler was well
established based on the available evidence. This finding was significant because it affirmed that
Makate had indeed entered into a legitimate contractual arrangement with Vodacom’s representative.
