IRM1501
EXAM PACK
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
11880465 Portfolio Examination Assignment 03 Semester 02 IRM1501
Question 1
According to (Bouchrika 2024), ‘empirical research is any study whose conclusions
are exclusively derived from concrete, verifiable evidence’.
However, the Introduction to Research Methodology (‘IRM1501’) study guide explains
empirical research as quantitative research.1 Empirical research is the process of
gathering and analysing data. In an empirical research set, researchers rely on
experience and observation when conducting research.
Primary data used when conducting empirical research include surveys, experiments,
case studies or the analysis of existing information. There are four components of
empirical research namely, descriptive, exploratory, explanatory and evaluation
research.
The purpose of descriptive research is to define or describe a certain social problem.
It sets out to describe the topic on which research is being conducted. Examples are
“how” and “why” being asked when conducting descriptive research. This component
of research brings clarity.
The component of exploratory research is mainly used in situations where little to no
legal research has been conducted on a specific topic. This form of research usually
tries to find out “what is going on?” This component of research digs deeper to find
more answers.
In contrast to exploratory research explanatory research is carried out in cases where
legal research has already been conducted on a topic, but a researcher wishes to
explore the reason(s) why things are in the manner that they are. Explanatory research
aims to answer questions like, “What are the perceptions of magistrates pertaining to
the use of restorative approach in child justice?”
Finally, evaluation research strives to explore the impact of a certain type of
intervention. With regards to this kind of research, the question is, how effective a
policy or programme is in achieving its goals or outcomes. Furthermore, evaluation
research is a form of explanatory research because it deals with the cause and effect
1
Prof, Swanepoel M. and Prof, Mabeka N. 2019-2022 ‘Introduction to Research Methodology.’ Only
Study Guide for IRM1501. 22-24.
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
11880465 Portfolio Examination Assignment 03 Semester 02 IRM1501
of explanatory research. Nonetheless, it is a unique form of research since it
specifically strives to evaluate the effect of policies or programmes.
Question 2
Title of the case:
Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd [2016] ZACC 13
The facts of the case:
The applicant in this case is Mr Kenneth Nkosana Makate who was an employee of
the respondent Vodacom Pty Limited (Vodacom) in 2000 as a trainee accountant.
However, after a dispute between the applicant and one of the respondent’s
representatives Mr Geissler the Director of Product Development and Management
on an agreement of Mr Makate’s business idea and/or proposal which he had shared
with Mr Geissler on advice by his mentor Mr Munchenje. Mr Makate shared the
business idea in the hopes of him profiting from his invention and he and Mr Geissler
had agreed and negotiated that the respondent (Vodacom) would use the applicant’s
idea to develop a new product (Please Call Me) which would be put on trial for
commercial viability. The idea was then developed based on the applicant’s idea and
was launched before the respondent’s Board approved it on the 15 of March 2001.
Earlier in the same month of March 2001 Mr Makate was praised and acknowledged
as the inventor of the “Please Call Me” idea. However, when the product became a
success and generated the company (Vodacom) billions of rands the applicant had
still not been compensated as agreed. The agreement was that if the product was a
success the applicant Mr Makate would receive compensation for his idea. In the initial
meeting with the respondent’s representative Mr Geissler, the applicant stated that he
wanted 15 percent of the revenue. Though the parties postponed the negotiations on
the amount to be paid to the applicant to a later date however there was an agreement
that in the case of the parties being unable to determine an amount to be paid the
respondent’s (Vodacom) Chief Executive Officer Mr Knott-Craig would determine the
amount to be paid. Thus far the applicant Mr Makate has not received any
compensation which has led him to go to the High Court four years after the launch of
the ”Please Call Me” product which he invented.
The legal question:
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
11880465 Portfolio Examination Assignment 03 Semester 02 IRM1501
Is there substantial proof of the agreement?
Does the applicant’s claim prescribe in terms of section 11 (d) of the Prescription Act?
Is the applicant entitled to any compensation?
Was ostensible authority relied on by the applicant?
Was ostensible authority pleaded correctly?
Should the common law be developed in the present circumstance?
The ratio decidendi, or reasons for the decision:
The applicant Mr Kenneth Nkosana Makate was able to testify in support of his claim
and called credible witnesses like Mr Munchenje and the American computer science
and telecommunications expert to testify. Furthermore, after reviewing the evidence
and the witnesses presented by the applicant Mr Makate the Court felt it was sufficient
and acceptable. The trial Court was extremely impressed with the witnesses brought
forward by the applicant. Furthermore, the Court concluded that Mr Munchenje’s
testimony was consistent with the general probabilities. In addition, the Court found
the applicant’s version was corroborated in material respects by the content of the
newsletter and emails that came from Mr Geissler. Lastly, the Court also considered
that the applicant’s testimony on the existence of the agreement was not converted,
despite Mr Geissler’s availability.
The finding(s):
The trial Court found that the applicant gave his evidence in a “reasonable manner”
regardless of the long and skilful cross-examination. In contrast to Mr Knott-Craig who
performed dismally as a witness as a result the trial Court found it easy to reject his
evidence. The trial Court also found that Mr Knott-Craig was willing to lie about matters
which were documented in the records of the respondent (Vodacom) as well as there
being a likelihood that Mr Knott-Craig was familiar with the newsletter which was sent
by the respondent (Vodacom’s) Managing Director since he Mr Knott-Craig also
contributed an article to the newsletter. As a result, the trial Court rejected Mr Knott-
Craig's testimony for various reasons. Similarly, the trial Court found that Mr Geissler’s
credibility was compromised as well as both Mr Knott-Craig and Mr Geissler attempted
to exclude the plaintiff from the “Please Call Me” script for financial and other reasons.
EXAM PACK
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
11880465 Portfolio Examination Assignment 03 Semester 02 IRM1501
Question 1
According to (Bouchrika 2024), ‘empirical research is any study whose conclusions
are exclusively derived from concrete, verifiable evidence’.
However, the Introduction to Research Methodology (‘IRM1501’) study guide explains
empirical research as quantitative research.1 Empirical research is the process of
gathering and analysing data. In an empirical research set, researchers rely on
experience and observation when conducting research.
Primary data used when conducting empirical research include surveys, experiments,
case studies or the analysis of existing information. There are four components of
empirical research namely, descriptive, exploratory, explanatory and evaluation
research.
The purpose of descriptive research is to define or describe a certain social problem.
It sets out to describe the topic on which research is being conducted. Examples are
“how” and “why” being asked when conducting descriptive research. This component
of research brings clarity.
The component of exploratory research is mainly used in situations where little to no
legal research has been conducted on a specific topic. This form of research usually
tries to find out “what is going on?” This component of research digs deeper to find
more answers.
In contrast to exploratory research explanatory research is carried out in cases where
legal research has already been conducted on a topic, but a researcher wishes to
explore the reason(s) why things are in the manner that they are. Explanatory research
aims to answer questions like, “What are the perceptions of magistrates pertaining to
the use of restorative approach in child justice?”
Finally, evaluation research strives to explore the impact of a certain type of
intervention. With regards to this kind of research, the question is, how effective a
policy or programme is in achieving its goals or outcomes. Furthermore, evaluation
research is a form of explanatory research because it deals with the cause and effect
1
Prof, Swanepoel M. and Prof, Mabeka N. 2019-2022 ‘Introduction to Research Methodology.’ Only
Study Guide for IRM1501. 22-24.
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
11880465 Portfolio Examination Assignment 03 Semester 02 IRM1501
of explanatory research. Nonetheless, it is a unique form of research since it
specifically strives to evaluate the effect of policies or programmes.
Question 2
Title of the case:
Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd [2016] ZACC 13
The facts of the case:
The applicant in this case is Mr Kenneth Nkosana Makate who was an employee of
the respondent Vodacom Pty Limited (Vodacom) in 2000 as a trainee accountant.
However, after a dispute between the applicant and one of the respondent’s
representatives Mr Geissler the Director of Product Development and Management
on an agreement of Mr Makate’s business idea and/or proposal which he had shared
with Mr Geissler on advice by his mentor Mr Munchenje. Mr Makate shared the
business idea in the hopes of him profiting from his invention and he and Mr Geissler
had agreed and negotiated that the respondent (Vodacom) would use the applicant’s
idea to develop a new product (Please Call Me) which would be put on trial for
commercial viability. The idea was then developed based on the applicant’s idea and
was launched before the respondent’s Board approved it on the 15 of March 2001.
Earlier in the same month of March 2001 Mr Makate was praised and acknowledged
as the inventor of the “Please Call Me” idea. However, when the product became a
success and generated the company (Vodacom) billions of rands the applicant had
still not been compensated as agreed. The agreement was that if the product was a
success the applicant Mr Makate would receive compensation for his idea. In the initial
meeting with the respondent’s representative Mr Geissler, the applicant stated that he
wanted 15 percent of the revenue. Though the parties postponed the negotiations on
the amount to be paid to the applicant to a later date however there was an agreement
that in the case of the parties being unable to determine an amount to be paid the
respondent’s (Vodacom) Chief Executive Officer Mr Knott-Craig would determine the
amount to be paid. Thus far the applicant Mr Makate has not received any
compensation which has led him to go to the High Court four years after the launch of
the ”Please Call Me” product which he invented.
The legal question:
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
11880465 Portfolio Examination Assignment 03 Semester 02 IRM1501
Is there substantial proof of the agreement?
Does the applicant’s claim prescribe in terms of section 11 (d) of the Prescription Act?
Is the applicant entitled to any compensation?
Was ostensible authority relied on by the applicant?
Was ostensible authority pleaded correctly?
Should the common law be developed in the present circumstance?
The ratio decidendi, or reasons for the decision:
The applicant Mr Kenneth Nkosana Makate was able to testify in support of his claim
and called credible witnesses like Mr Munchenje and the American computer science
and telecommunications expert to testify. Furthermore, after reviewing the evidence
and the witnesses presented by the applicant Mr Makate the Court felt it was sufficient
and acceptable. The trial Court was extremely impressed with the witnesses brought
forward by the applicant. Furthermore, the Court concluded that Mr Munchenje’s
testimony was consistent with the general probabilities. In addition, the Court found
the applicant’s version was corroborated in material respects by the content of the
newsletter and emails that came from Mr Geissler. Lastly, the Court also considered
that the applicant’s testimony on the existence of the agreement was not converted,
despite Mr Geissler’s availability.
The finding(s):
The trial Court found that the applicant gave his evidence in a “reasonable manner”
regardless of the long and skilful cross-examination. In contrast to Mr Knott-Craig who
performed dismally as a witness as a result the trial Court found it easy to reject his
evidence. The trial Court also found that Mr Knott-Craig was willing to lie about matters
which were documented in the records of the respondent (Vodacom) as well as there
being a likelihood that Mr Knott-Craig was familiar with the newsletter which was sent
by the respondent (Vodacom’s) Managing Director since he Mr Knott-Craig also
contributed an article to the newsletter. As a result, the trial Court rejected Mr Knott-
Craig's testimony for various reasons. Similarly, the trial Court found that Mr Geissler’s
credibility was compromised as well as both Mr Knott-Craig and Mr Geissler attempted
to exclude the plaintiff from the “Please Call Me” script for financial and other reasons.
