Makata hails ‘Please Call Me' ruling
Vodafone has failed in its bid to be admitted as a friend of the court in the protracted legal battle between Vodacom and ‘Please Call Me’ (PCM) inventor Nkosana Makate.
The Sunday Times reports that the dispute over compensation is before the Constitutional Court again after Vodacom went to the Constitutional Court in February in a bid to quash a SCA ruling that it should make a new compensation offer to Makate for his PCM idea.
The SCA set aside a R47m offer that Vodacom CEO Shameel Joosub made to Makate five years ago, which he rejected.
On Friday, the Constitutional Court found that ‘no case has been made’ by Vodafone in its bid to be admitted in the matter as a friend of the court.
‘The Constitutional Court has considered the application as amicus curiae. It has concluded that the application should be dismissed as no case has been made out for admission as amicus curiae,’ the court held.
The ruling involved eight justices, who also decided not to award costs in the matter.
Vodafone had argued its application sought to ‘enrich the debate and subsequently contribute towards the effective, and indeed properly contextualised, disposal of the appeal’.
Makate labelled the ruling as ‘a massive victory for me’.
‘What Vodafone was trying to do through this application was technically tantamount to interference in our judicial process. Our argument from the (outset) was that, being a controlling shareholder, Vodafone could not be an amicus, because (it is) in fact a litigant in the matter through (its) control of the Vodacom Group,’ Makate said.
The Sunday Times notes that he was now looking forward to ‘the submissions before the Constitutional Court as directed by the Chief Justice’.
This is the second time the dispute between Makate and Vodacom has come before the highest court in the land, as the Constitutional Court ruled in April 2016 that Makate must be recognised and compensated for his idea.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.