Constitutional Court’s “Please Call Me” Judgment: A Turning Point for Review Applications and Employment Law The protracted legal battle between Vodacom and the inventor of “Please Call Me” (Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v Makate and Another [2025] ZACC 13) has taken another dramatic turn, following a recent Constitutional Court decision that not only reshapes the dispute but also sets new standards for judicial and arbitral review in South African law. In 2001, a Vodacom trainee accountant conceived the “Please Call Me” (PCM) service, enabling users without airtime to send a free message requesting a call back. Vodacom adopted the idea, which became a commercial success.
Years later, a dispute arose over whether the employee should be compensated for his innovation. In 2016, the Constitutional Court ordered Vodacom and the employee to negotiate “reasonable compensation” in good faith. If negotiations failed, Vodacom’s CEO would determine the amount.
Negotiations broke down: the employee sought over R20 billion, while Vodacom offered R10 million. The CEO ultimately awarded R47 million. Dissatisfied, the employee launched a review application.
Read Full Article on Daily Dispatch
[paywall]
in the High Court, challenging the CEO’s determination. The High Court set aside the CEO’s decision, remitting the matter for recalculation with specific guidelines. Vodacom appealed, but the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed the appeal and, controversially, substituted its own order—awarding the employee billions of rands based on his financial models, despite no cross-appeal seeking such relief.
Vodacom then approached the Constitutional Court, arguing that the SCA’s judgment was fundamentally flawed. The CC agreed, finding: · Failure to properly consider the facts and issues: The SCA misunderstood or ignored crucial evidence, including financial models and expert testimony. · Inadequate reasoning: The SCA’s judgment was riddled with contradictions and gaps, failing to engage with the complex issues.
· Jurisdictional error: By substituting its own order without a cross-appeal, the SCA decided a case not properly before it, violating Vodacom’s right to a fair hearing. The Constitutional Court held that these failures breached the rule of law and the constitutional right to a fair hearing (section 34). The Constitutional Court granted Vodacom leave to appeal and returned the matter to the SCA for rehearing.
The court reaffirmed that all adjudicators—whether judges, CEOs, or CCMA commissioners—carry a constitutional mandate to properly consider the material issues before them. A failure to do so amounts to a gross irregularity.
[/paywall]
