The “Please Call Me” (PCM) legal saga has been running for many years and, by all indications, still has a way to go before it is finally resolved. The Constitutional Court’s latest ruling to refer the compensation dispute back to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) for final quantum determination points to more legal battles ahead.
What happens if Vodacom is again not happy with the outcome? Can the telco force a third ConCourt battle?
The court did not specify when the case would be enrolled before a new SCA panel, creating uncertainty about the timeline. However, the devil is in the detail.
Draft orders were submitted — a 5% revenue share over 18 years, plus interest. If this consensus holds, the new panel of SCA judges could simply endorse the agreement, sparing all parties further litigation by quantifying the exact amount to be paid to Nkosana Makate.
But if Vodacom contests the matter, or if the SCA’s ruling displeases the telecom giant, another appeal to the Constitutional Court remains a real and troubling possibility.
Vodacom has fought Makate at every turn, from the high court to the SCA and at the ConCourt. The company’s deep pockets and legal manoeuvring have enabled it to prolong the battle far beyond reason.
Now, with the panel of SCA judges tasked only with finalising the quantum, not revisiting liability, one might expect finalisation. But corporate litigation strategies are rarely so straightforward.
If the SCA awards Makate a substantial sum, let’s say for argument’s sake about R15bn plus interest, Vodacom could theoretically challenge the calculation, arguing procedural flaws or misinterpretations. Such an appeal would drag the case back to the apex court for an unprecedented third round, further delaying justice and testing the judiciary’s patience.
This scenario would strain an already overburdened court system and set a dangerous precedent: that powerful corporations can outlast individuals through attrition. It would also raise constitutional questions about access to justice and the abuse of legal processes.
The ConCourt has ruled in Makate’s favour; how many times must it say the same thing before a company complies?
In a country still grappling with economic inequality, this judicial embrace of ubuntu is a reminder that the law must serve justice, not just enforce contracts
More than just a contract dispute, the PCM case has become a referendum on corporate accountability. If Vodacom appeals again, it risks not just reputational damage but also judicial backlash. Courts have limits, and even the most patient judges may question why a final decision remains elusive after a quarter of a century of court cases.
For Makate, another appeal would mean more years of uncertainty.
As for ordinary South Africans, another Vodacom appeal would signal whether constitutionalism can withstand corporate resistance. The courts have affirmed Makate’s rights; now the question is whether the system can enforce them without endless delays.
Makate’s case also redefines the boundaries of workplace innovation.
Traditionally, companies claim ownership of intellectual property developed by employees during their tenure. But in this case, when Makate invented PCM he was a finance clerk, not a product developer. His idea emerged outside his formal duties, and he voluntarily pitched it to Vodacom with the understanding that he would be rewarded if it succeeded.
The ConCourt recognised this distinction, setting a crucial precedent: when an employee’s innovation falls outside their job scope and is presented with an expectation of compensation, companies cannot simply expropriate it without fair remuneration.
Perhaps the most profound dimension of this case is its infusion of ubuntu, the African philosophy of shared humanity, into commercial law.
Former chief justice Mogoeng Mogeong’s judgment echoed this principle, framing the dispute not just as a contractual matter but a moral one.
This approach challenges the cold formalism often dominating corporate law. It sends a message: businesses have ethical obligations beyond the fine print.
In a country still grappling with economic inequality, this judicial embrace of ubuntu is a reminder that the law must serve justice, not just enforce contracts.
But its final chapter will determine something even more fundamental. The PCM case is a litmus test for South Africa’s constitutional democracy.
It probes whether the courts can uphold fairness against corporate might, whether oral agreements hold weight against written contracts, and whether ubuntu can temper the rigidities of commercial law. Crucially it asks whether justice, once recognised, can be delivered without endless delay.
As this saga nears its final chapters, one thing is certain: the PCM case will either affirm South Africa’s commitment to constitutionalism or expose its vulnerabilities.
For Makate, and for every employee who dares to innovate, the hope remains that the courts will answer this call with the urgency it demands.
• Lourie is founder and editor of Tech Financials
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.