logo
SCA rules in state's favour in the Nulane case, orders retrial of all accused

SCA rules in state's favour in the Nulane case, orders retrial of all accused

TimesLIVE12-06-2025
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has upheld an appeal by the state against the judgment of the Free State High Court in 2023 which discharged the accused in the R24.9m Nulane Investments fraud and money-laundering case.
The SCA on Thursday set aside the acquittal of six individual accused and two companies. It also ordered that the accused may be retried for the same offences as if they had not been previously arraigned, tried and acquitted, provided a different judge presides over the trial.
In 2023 five of the accused successfully applied for discharges while another was acquitted as acting judge Nompumelo Gusha ruled the state had failed to pass the tests for putting forward a prima facie case.
Former Free State agriculture department head Limakatso Moorosi, who did not apply for a discharge, was acquitted by Gusha, while her co-accused were discharged. They are:
Gupta associate Iqbal Sharma;
Peter Thabethe, former head of the Free State department of rural development;
Seipati Dhlamini, former provincial agriculture department CFO;
Dinesh Patel, Sharma's brother-in-law and a representative of Nulane;
Islandsite director Ronica Ragavan; and
Nulane Investment and Islandsite as entities.
The state charged Thabethe and Moorosi with contravening the Public Finance Management Act by allegedly committing the Free State agriculture and rural development department to a contract of R24.9m without following a tender process. The state also charged all eight accused of fraud.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Makate believes ConCourt could've had more conclusive findings in battle with Vodacom
Makate believes ConCourt could've had more conclusive findings in battle with Vodacom

Eyewitness News

timea day ago

  • Eyewitness News

Makate believes ConCourt could've had more conclusive findings in battle with Vodacom

JOHANNESBURG - 'Please call me' inventor, Nkosana Makate, said he believes that the Constitutional Court could have come to a conclusive finding in his battle with telecommunications giant Vodacom. The apex court has remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), setting aside its ruling. ALSO READ: Despite ConCourt setback, 'Please call me' inventor Makate still resilient in battle with Vodacom In a scathing judgment, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the appeals court made several errors in its adjudication of the matter, which resulted in a ruling in Makate's favour. Makate and Vodacom have been in an almost 20-year battle over what is due to Makate over the invention of the 'Please call me' product. In his final judgment before retirement, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga highlighted what he called the SCA's fatal shortcomings in that it did not make its own decision on the issues in the matter. The court has granted Vodacom leave to appeal the SCA's judgment but has also ruled that the matter should go back to the court before a different panel. "It seems to me the just and equitable remedy [77] is for the appeal to be decided on its merits by the court that ought to have decided it. More importantly, in the main, what remains for determination in the appeal are factual questions that do not ordinarily fall for determination by this court." But Makate said he was expecting a different decision. "I think the ConCourt could have finalised the matter. We still had a hearing in the high court, which they could have gone to as well, and ignored the SCA completely. They could have done that." Makate said he remains resilient and sure in his case.

After the Bell: How much is a business idea worth?
After the Bell: How much is a business idea worth?

Daily Maverick

timea day ago

  • Daily Maverick

After the Bell: How much is a business idea worth?

This may be an unpopular view, but I'm not convinced one person should get billions for one simple insight that would probably have been implemented anyway. Through all of the years I have been lucky enough to be a journalist, there is one fundamental dynamic that has become completely entrenched in our society, and most others. It is that the rich are getting richer while the poor are falling further and further behind. One of the big drivers of this seems to be the way in which salaries for CEOs have really increased in the past few years. Now, I fully expect and understand that someone who is able to create value for themselves and others should be paid well. And I do mean really well. It seems entirely moral to me that people should be paid for doing constructive things. I do wonder though about cases that really involve a rise in technology, or just one insight. So, Mark Zuckerberg has literally created an industry. But he did this as part of technological changes in society. He would not have been able to do it without being American, being at Harvard, and being there when he was. Something similar must have happened in 2022 when soaring platinum prices resulted in the CEO of Sibanye-Stillwater, Neal Froneman, getting paid about R300-million. Now, I could never do what Froneman does. He has a rare combination of skills and the ability to lead a group of people to enable others to make money. And, of course, much of his salary was in the form of shares, their value increased in line with platinum prices immediately after the Covid pandemic. This means that this money was not paid out directly by the company, but was the result of the increase in the value of shares he had been given before the rally. The case of The Foschini Group CEO Anthony Thunström is an interesting example. In 2024, he was paid 43% less than the year before because the group missed certain targets. This year, he was paid R45-million because he hit those targets. While he cannot control all of the variables around him, there is something about this that seems intrinsically fairer to me than Froneman's situation, where he benefited hugely from a historic dynamic that lifted platinum prices. That said, he could argue, perhaps, that only he could have ensured his company was able to take such full advantage of that increase. I was thinking about all of this watching the Constitutional Court's ruling in the Nkosana Makate case against Vodacom. He and Vodacom have been arguing for nearly 20 years over how much the network should be paying him for his insight that it should start a 'Please Call Me' service. I really thought today would be the day this case would finally end. I mean, really, how long can one case drag on? Instead, all of the judges found the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had got the case hopelessly wrong. But, being on the Constitutional Court, they also felt they should not have to sift through the arguments and the maths. Now the SCA must do it again, with a new Bench of judges. For me, at the heart of it is: How much can one idea be worth? I can see that, for Zuckerberg, perhaps that idea could be worth a huge amount – he did create something that changed the world. For Elon Musk, perhaps his ideas – around electric cars, rockets and goodness knows what else – will literally save the planet. That must be worth quite a lot. But like Musk and Zuckerberg and Froneman, there are other forces at work in the Makate case. Obviously on the one side is Vodacom, one of our biggest companies with huge resources. It will fight for many years to prevent having to pay out any amounts that go into the billions. While it can appear as if Makate is on his own, in fact at least part of his campaign has been financed through contingency fees with law firms and, during at least one stage, other groups. This means that both sides will fight forever. The stakes are that high. This may be an unpopular view, but I'm not convinced one person should get billions for one simple insight that would probably have been implemented anyway. It's true that the Please Call Me service is now old hat, but at the time it was revolutionary. But it was one simple insight into a technology that was evolving very quickly. And MTN already had their own Please Call Me service up and running before Vodacom was able to implement theirs. Should he receive compensation? Sure. Millions? Maybe. Billions? Surely not. Of course, no matter how rich or comfortable we may be, we all have our own financial hopes and dreams. Some of us just want to pay off our bond. Or our kids' school fees. These are all legitimate. And that's why our demands to be properly paid are also entirely legitimate. Even if your first name is Elon, and you are hoping and dreaming of going to Mars. DM

The Makate vs Vodacom saga: A deep dive into the 'Please Call Me' court battle
The Makate vs Vodacom saga: A deep dive into the 'Please Call Me' court battle

IOL News

time2 days ago

  • IOL News

The Makate vs Vodacom saga: A deep dive into the 'Please Call Me' court battle

In a historic judgment delivered on Thursday, the Constitutional Court ruled that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had committed several errors in assessing Vodacom's appeal against a High Court decision. Outgoing Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Madlanga delivered his last ruling involving the long-running dispute between Nkosana Makate and Vodacom over the Please Call Me invention. The ruling has significant implications for the case and the legal battle for compensation. We take a deep dive into the key events in the Makate vs Vodacom 'Please Call Me' battle.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store