IRM1501
ASSIGNMENT 2
SEMESTER 1
DUE DATE: 19 APRIL
2024
"Elevate Your Excellence: Where Distinction Meets Assurance in Every Assignment!"
,IRM1501 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 – 2024
DUE DATE: 19 APRIL 2024
1
, ASSIGNMENT TWO
QUESTION 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).
(20 MARKS)
The Right to a Fair Hearing and Ostensible Authority: Examining Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd
INTRODUCTION:
The South African legal system prioritizes a fair and just resolution of disputes. This principle is
enshrined in the Constitution's right to a fair hearing (Section 34). The case of Makate v
Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13 (26 April 2016) exemplifies this commitment.
This case centered on a contract dispute and the concept of ostensible authority, where
someone appears to have the power to bind a company to an agreement. By examining the
facts, legal question, reasoning of the court (ratio decidendi), and the final findings, we can
delve into the intricacies of this case and its contribution to legal principles in South Africa.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case of Makate relates to a contractual dispute between Vodacom and Mr Makate which
stems from an oral agreement that was concluded between Mr Makate and Mr Geissler, the
Director of Product Development and Management at Vodacom. 1 This oral agreement was
later induced in writing by Mr Geissler who was at the time acting on behalf of Vodacom and
this was done via email correspondence. 2 Mr Makate at the time of the conclusion of the
agreement was an employee of Vodacom and he was employed as a trainee accountant. 3 He
had a distance relationship with his girlfriend and they were struggling to communicate
because ‘she did not always have money to call Mr Makate’. 4
1
Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13 [ 1-16] (Hereinafter referred to as The Makate case).
2
The Makate case [12].
3
The Makate case [2].
4
The Makate case [2].
2
ASSIGNMENT 2
SEMESTER 1
DUE DATE: 19 APRIL
2024
"Elevate Your Excellence: Where Distinction Meets Assurance in Every Assignment!"
,IRM1501 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 – 2024
DUE DATE: 19 APRIL 2024
1
, ASSIGNMENT TWO
QUESTION 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).
(20 MARKS)
The Right to a Fair Hearing and Ostensible Authority: Examining Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd
INTRODUCTION:
The South African legal system prioritizes a fair and just resolution of disputes. This principle is
enshrined in the Constitution's right to a fair hearing (Section 34). The case of Makate v
Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13 (26 April 2016) exemplifies this commitment.
This case centered on a contract dispute and the concept of ostensible authority, where
someone appears to have the power to bind a company to an agreement. By examining the
facts, legal question, reasoning of the court (ratio decidendi), and the final findings, we can
delve into the intricacies of this case and its contribution to legal principles in South Africa.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case of Makate relates to a contractual dispute between Vodacom and Mr Makate which
stems from an oral agreement that was concluded between Mr Makate and Mr Geissler, the
Director of Product Development and Management at Vodacom. 1 This oral agreement was
later induced in writing by Mr Geissler who was at the time acting on behalf of Vodacom and
this was done via email correspondence. 2 Mr Makate at the time of the conclusion of the
agreement was an employee of Vodacom and he was employed as a trainee accountant. 3 He
had a distance relationship with his girlfriend and they were struggling to communicate
because ‘she did not always have money to call Mr Makate’. 4
1
Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13 [ 1-16] (Hereinafter referred to as The Makate case).
2
The Makate case [12].
3
The Makate case [2].
4
The Makate case [2].
2
