Safaricom sees earnings surge as Ethiopia startup losses fall
Safaricom, partly owned by South Africa's Vodacom and Britain's Vodafone, launched in Ethiopia in 2022 as the government there opened up the tightly-controlled economy to foreign competition.
The company has had a bumpy ride in Ethiopia due to security, inflation and currency challenges, but it remains bullish that Africa's second most-populous nation will power future growth.
CEO Peter Ndegwa told a results presentation that the company was expecting group earnings before interest and taxes of 144-billion to 150-billion Kenyan shillings (R20.26bn to R21.10bn) in the year to the end of March 2026, excluding the hyper-inflationary impact from its Ethiopian business.
That compares with EBIT of 97.1-billion shillings (R13.66bn) in the year to end-March 2025 without the hyper-inflationary impact.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
Apex Court's surprise ruling extends Makate's Please Call Me Battle
Nqolokazi Nomvalo ss Head of Legal: Operations at Life Healthcare Group. Image: Supplied FOR nearly two decades, South Africans have watched the legal saga between Vodacom and its former employee, Nkosana Makate, unfold like a courtroom drama with no final act. The latest twist, a unanimous Constitutional Court judgment handed down on Thursday, has reignited public interest and legal debate. In a development that stunned many legal observers and defied predictions of finality, the apex court has remitted the case back to the Supreme Court of Appeal. It will now be reconsidered by a freshly constituted bench. This move injects fresh uncertainty into a saga long believed to be approaching its conclusion. But what does this mean, and why does it matter? It is important to clarify that Makate's original idea was a simple yet powerful proposition: a mobile user with no airtime should be able to 'buzz' another user, prompting them to call back. Vodacom, recognising the creativity, developed the concept into the now-famous "Please Call Me" free message. This version allowed for costless transmission and universal utility. That difference matters, especially when assessing the various compensation models, which have ranged from employee-equivalent remuneration to revenue-sharing frameworks. The Supreme Court of Appeal had previously affirmed the Gauteng High Court's decision in Makate's favour and went further, controversially substituting its own compensation formula and awarding Makate 5 to 7.5 percent of Please Call Me revenue. Vodacom challenged this ruling, arguing that the SCA overstepped its bounds as an appellate court, particularly because Makate had not lodged a cross-appeal. The Constitutional Court, being the highest court in the land, granted Vodacom leave to appeal and upheld its challenge. Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, writing for a unanimous bench in what is widely regarded as his swan judgment before retirement, agreed. The Constitutional Court held that the SCA had impermissibly ventured into terrain that required a cross-appeal and had disregarded the true issues before it. This resulted in a failure of justice, specifically a breach of Vodacom's right to a fair public hearing as guaranteed under section 34 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court has directed that the case return to the SCA, where a different panel of judges will now consider it afresh. It marks a rare judicial reset in a case that has already passed through every major court in the country. The legal significance of this moment cannot be overstated. The Constitutional Court has reinforced the boundaries of appellate authority and revived critical scrutiny around the quantum of fair compensation. The referral order compels the SCA to take a fresh look, with a new bench and a sharper lens, at the determination originally made by Vodacom's CEO. That figure was R47 million, reached after extensive modelling and expert input. It followed a failed negotiation between Makate, who proposed R20.2 billion, and Vodacom, which offered R10 million. Makate has challenged the CEO's determination as woefully low, especially in light of the widespread success of the Please Call Me service. Beyond the courtroom, this case has come to represent the struggle for equitable recognition of intellectual contributions, especially by employees in corporate ecosystems. The 'Please Call Me' litigation has gripped the public imagination. It's not just because of the staggering figures involved. It speaks to something profoundly South African: the courage to claim one's voice and the power of innovation born in unlikely places. As the legal process restarts again, one hopes that the eventual outcome will honour not just the merits of law but the deeper values it serves—justice, fairness, and transformative equity. That would be a fitting tribute to Justice Madlanga's legacy of principled clarity and constitutional fidelity. (Nomvalo is Head of Legal: Operations at Life Healthcare Group. She began her career in corporate litigation and commercial law at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc. Her expertise also encompasses traditional arts, heritage preservation, transformation, and the promotion of women's and children's rights. Her views don't necessarily reflect those of the Sunday Tribune or Independent Media) SUNDAY TRIBUNE
Eyewitness News
4 days 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.
Daily Maverick
4 days 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
