IRM1501 Assignment 2
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE April
2025
, Question
Locate 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 analyze this
case following the required format (Facts, legal issue, rationale for the verdict or ratio decidendi,
and the conclusions).
Case Overview: Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13
Data:
Mr. Nkosana Makate, a past employee of Vodacom, asserted that he had originated the concept fo
the "Please Call Me" (PCM) service, enabling users to send a complimentary message asking
for a return call. The service turned out to be very profitable for Vodacom. Makate claimed that
he had formed a verbal contract with
Mr. Philip Geissler, the former Director of Product Development and Management at Vodacom,
assured him he would receive compensation for the idea. Nonetheless, Vodacom declined to
compensate Makate, asserting that the concept did not originate with him and that there was no
binding contract. Makate went to the courts, requesting acknowledgment of the agreement and
recompense.
The case was first considered in the High Court, which decided in favor of Vodacom, determining
that no enforceable agreement was present. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) confirmed the
decision made by the High Court. Makate subsequently filed an appeal to the Constitutional
Court of South Africa.
Legal Inquiry:
The main legal issue for the Constitutional Court was if the spoken agreement between Makate and
Vodacom, represented by Mr. Geissler, held legal binding and enforceable status. In particular,
the court needed to decide:
The question is whether Geissler possessed the power to commit Vodacom to that agreement.
Whether the agreement, if established, granted Makate the right to compensation for his idea.
Rationale for the Verdict (Ratio Decidendi): 1. Power to Obligate the Company:
The court determined that Geissler, in his role as a senior executive, held the apparent or ostensibl
authority to negotiate and sign agreements on Vodacom's behalf. Even if he lacked formal
authority, Vodacom represented him as if he had such authority, and Makate was justified in
depending on this representation.
Presence of a Verbal Agreement:
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE April
2025
, Question
Locate 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 analyze this
case following the required format (Facts, legal issue, rationale for the verdict or ratio decidendi,
and the conclusions).
Case Overview: Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13
Data:
Mr. Nkosana Makate, a past employee of Vodacom, asserted that he had originated the concept fo
the "Please Call Me" (PCM) service, enabling users to send a complimentary message asking
for a return call. The service turned out to be very profitable for Vodacom. Makate claimed that
he had formed a verbal contract with
Mr. Philip Geissler, the former Director of Product Development and Management at Vodacom,
assured him he would receive compensation for the idea. Nonetheless, Vodacom declined to
compensate Makate, asserting that the concept did not originate with him and that there was no
binding contract. Makate went to the courts, requesting acknowledgment of the agreement and
recompense.
The case was first considered in the High Court, which decided in favor of Vodacom, determining
that no enforceable agreement was present. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) confirmed the
decision made by the High Court. Makate subsequently filed an appeal to the Constitutional
Court of South Africa.
Legal Inquiry:
The main legal issue for the Constitutional Court was if the spoken agreement between Makate and
Vodacom, represented by Mr. Geissler, held legal binding and enforceable status. In particular,
the court needed to decide:
The question is whether Geissler possessed the power to commit Vodacom to that agreement.
Whether the agreement, if established, granted Makate the right to compensation for his idea.
Rationale for the Verdict (Ratio Decidendi): 1. Power to Obligate the Company:
The court determined that Geissler, in his role as a senior executive, held the apparent or ostensibl
authority to negotiate and sign agreements on Vodacom's behalf. Even if he lacked formal
authority, Vodacom represented him as if he had such authority, and Makate was justified in
depending on this representation.
Presence of a Verbal Agreement:
