IRM1501
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: APRIL 2025
, IRM1501
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date: April 2025
Introduction to Research Methodology for Law and Criminal Justice
Case: Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13; 2016 (6) BCLR 709
(CC); 2016 (4) SA 121 (CC) (26 April 2016)
1. Facts:
This case is about Nkosana Makate, who worked at Vodacom as a trainee accountant.
While he was employed there, he came up with the idea for the “Please Call Me”
service. The service allowed a Vodacom user to send a free text message requesting a
call back. It became incredibly popular and brought Vodacom a lot of revenue.
Makate shared his idea with his boss, Lazarus, who promised that Vodacom would
compensate him if the idea made money. However, Vodacom later refused to pay him,
arguing that Lazarus did not have the authority to make such a deal on behalf of the
company.
Makate then took the matter to court, seeking fair compensation for his contribution.
2. Legal Question:
The main issues the court had to decide were:
Did Vodacom enter into a binding agreement with Makate through Lazarus?
Was Makate entitled to be compensated for his idea?
Was Makate’s claim barred because too much time had passed since the
agreement?
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: APRIL 2025
, IRM1501
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date: April 2025
Introduction to Research Methodology for Law and Criminal Justice
Case: Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13; 2016 (6) BCLR 709
(CC); 2016 (4) SA 121 (CC) (26 April 2016)
1. Facts:
This case is about Nkosana Makate, who worked at Vodacom as a trainee accountant.
While he was employed there, he came up with the idea for the “Please Call Me”
service. The service allowed a Vodacom user to send a free text message requesting a
call back. It became incredibly popular and brought Vodacom a lot of revenue.
Makate shared his idea with his boss, Lazarus, who promised that Vodacom would
compensate him if the idea made money. However, Vodacom later refused to pay him,
arguing that Lazarus did not have the authority to make such a deal on behalf of the
company.
Makate then took the matter to court, seeking fair compensation for his contribution.
2. Legal Question:
The main issues the court had to decide were:
Did Vodacom enter into a binding agreement with Makate through Lazarus?
Was Makate entitled to be compensated for his idea?
Was Makate’s claim barred because too much time had passed since the
agreement?
