<\/p>\n
Litigation funder Black Rock Mining has failed in its attempt to put a freeze on 40% of Please Call Me founder Kenneth Makate\u2019s winnings from Vodacom.<\/p>\n
On Monday (8 December 2025), Judge Don Mahon of the Joburg High Court dismissed an urgent application by Black Rock Mining, which funded Makate\u2019s early litigation to the tune of about R4.3 million, and sought to prevent the Please Call Me inventor from dissipating his winnings received from the recent settlement with Vodacom.<\/p>\n
Read:
Makate is trying to \u2018disclaim his liabilities\u2019, says legal funder
Makate agrees to hold 40% of \u2018Please Call Me\u2019 settlement pending court hearing
Extortionists\u2019 want 40% of Makate\u2019s \u2018Please Call Me\u2019 payout<\/p>\n
Makate\u2019s settlement with Vodacom remains subject to a non-disclosure agreement, but a review of Vodacom\u2019s half year results to September 2025 point to a one-off cost of anywhere between R353 million and R748 million for the invention.<\/p>\n
This is based on a downward revision in the expected earnings per share range for Vodacom due to the Please Call Me settlement.<\/p>\n
Arbitration ahead<\/strong><\/p>\n The dispute is not yet over \u2013 it will now go to arbitration to determine how much Makate received from Black Rock, and whether it has a legal claim to any of his winnings.<\/p>\n Moneyweb understands that there are discussions currently underway between the parties to see whether a possible settlement can be reached without further litigation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The settlement with Vodacom brings to a close nearly two decades of legal wrangling over the provenance and value of the Please Call Me invention. That, however, is not the end of the matter.<\/p>\n Within days of Makate settling his dispute with Vodacom, another legal claim landed on his lap, this time from Black Rock Mining, represented by Errol Elsdon.<\/p>\n Read: Black Rock contends that it is owed 40% of Makate\u2019s winnings from Vodacom based on a funding agreement signed in 2011 between Makate and the late Christiaan Schoeman, acting on behalf of a company still to be nominated.<\/p>\n Makate\u2019s legal team disputed Black Rock\u2019s claim, arguing that the funding agreement had been cancelled years ago or, alternatively, that the claim had prescribed (run out of time), and that there was no genuine urgency.<\/p>\n PCM invention<\/strong><\/p>\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Makate first launched legal proceedings against Vodacom in 2008, claiming fair compensation for his Please Call Me PCM) invention.<\/p>\n The case wound its way from the high court to the Supreme Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Constitution Court, which instructed Vodacom CEO Shameel Joosub to come up with a good faith compensation figure for the invention.<\/p>\n He later came up with a figure of R47 million in 2019, which was rejected as too low by Makate who then approached the Pretoria High Court to have Joosub\u2019s determination reviewed and set aside.<\/p>\n Legal proceedings continued until the confidential settlement was concluded between Makate and Vodacom in early November.<\/p>\n PCM was launched in 2001 as a way for customers without airtime to request a callback via SMS. This drove indirect revenue through subsequent voice calls and helped build loyalty among poor customers who might otherwise have churned to another call provider.<\/p>\n Based on analyst reports and court documents, PCM may have generated anywhere between R195 billion and R273 billion for Vodacom since 2001.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In the latest legal adjudication, the Joburg High Court had to wade through the agreements going back nearly 15 years to establish whether Elsdon and Black Rock had any right to be in court at all.<\/p>\n The original agreement signed in 2011 by Makate and Schoeman gave 40% of any winnings from Vodacom to a company still to be nominated.<\/p>\n In 2013, Schoeman informed Makate that he had nominated Black Rock as the nominated company. Things quickly soured from there.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In October 2014, Makate\u2019s attorneys wrote to Schoeman alleging he had breached the funding agreement and called on him to remedy the default. In January 2015, Makate\u2019s team sent a letter to Schoeman cancelling the agreement.<\/p>\n Raining Men Trade controversy<\/strong><\/p>\n Around the same time, another entity called Raining Men Trade appeared on the scene claiming it \u2013 rather than Black Rock \u2013 was the nominated funding company. The matter went to arbitration where it was decided that Black Rock was the only entity ever nominated.<\/p>\n The arbitrator did not determine whether the funding agreement had been validly cancelled.<\/p>\n ADVERTISEMENT:<\/p>\n CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n Makate says his signature was forged on that agreement that changed the funding agreement from Black Rock to Raining Men.<\/p>\n In 2014, the British Virgin Islands company Black Rock was deregistered and was only revived again in January 2021, some time after Vodacom made its R47 million offer for PCM.<\/p>\n Read: Vodacom\u2019s terminal saga<\/p>\n Black Rock took no steps during this interregnum to assert its rights, but in March 2021, Makate\u2019s legal team again despatched correspondence to the company, purportedly cancelling the funding agreement, this time on the grounds of fraud, alternatively repudiation.<\/p>\n \u201cI have found the three of them [Schoeman, Elsdon and his girlfriend Roscher] to be dishonest and fraudsters. An arbitrator shared my views. The inaccuracies and lack of candour in the affidavit of Elsdon shows that he has not changed his ways,\u201d deposed Makate in his court papers.<\/p>\n Elsdon vehemently denied these allegations, adding that the matter was previously decided by arbitration and Makate cannot now relitigate matters already settled.<\/p>\n High Court ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n The Joburg High Court found that the threat of Makate dissipating the funds, if it existed at all, could be remedied by bringing a financial claim to court.<\/p>\n Read: ConCourt upholds Vodacom please call me appeal<\/p>\n \u201cThe law does not prevent a litigant from using lawfully acquired funds for lawful purposes merely because another party asserts a contractual claim to a portion of them,\u201d ruled Judge Mahon.<\/p>\n \u201cI am accordingly of the view that the applicant has failed to establish an intention to dissipate, or a reasonable apprehension that the settlement proceeds will be dissipated. The harm it fears is financial and capable of redress in ordinary proceedings. Without evidence of dissipation or irreparable harm, the application cannot meet the requirements of urgency or interim interdictory relief.\u201d<\/p>\n The threat of Makate dissipating funds cannot be separated from the matter of urgency, which was also found not to exist.<\/p>\n Read:\u00a0Makate\u2019s court victory against Vodacom is also a victory for litigation funding<\/p>\n Follow Moneyweb\u2019s in-depth finance and business news on WhatsApp here.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
Vodacom buries Makate settlement figure, seen as closer to R700m
Vodacom in \u2018Please Call Me\u2019 out-of-court settlement with Makate<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n