In yet another twist, Vodacom has appealed a latest court judgment as it seeks to overturn a high court ruling that favoured "Please Call Me (PCM)" inventor Nkosana Makate.

Vodacom, in the court papers, argues that Pretoria high court judge Wendy Hughes erred when in her February judgment gave the telecommunications giant one month to make “a fresh determination” to Makate.

Vodacom wants the matter to be heard in April by either a full bench of judges  in the Pretoria high court or the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Makate had hauled Vodacom back to court after he rejected the cellphone giant's compensation offer of R47m which was made in 2019.

Hughes had ruled that “the determination (R47m) by the CEO is referred back to Vodacom CEO Shameel Joosub who is obliged to make a fresh determination".

Hughes's judgment said Makate was entitled to be paid 5% of the total voice revenue generated from the PCM product from March 2001 to March 2021.

“That total voice revenue includes Please Call Me revenue derived from prepaid, contract (both in bundle and out bundle) and interconnect (MTR) fees as set out in the Second Respondent's annual financial statements,” the judgment stated.

Hughes also ruled that Joosub “must determine the annual effective rate, which effective rate should be a blend between contract effective rate and prepaid effective rate, and in each case the respective rates are not to be less than the published Icasa effective rate”.

However, Vodacom said in the court papers filed on February 25 that Hughes's judgment erred in law by saying that the exercise of the company boss Shameel Joosub "ought to be subjected to fairness and reasonableness, in accordance with the principles of natural justice".

The company says Hughes also erred by finding that Joosub, in exercising his discretion, was obliged to "have regard to the fundamental principles of justice" and that he was obliged to adhere to the audi alteram partem principle.

Vodacom says that Joosub's determination was subject to review only if it was "unreasonable, irregular or wrong so as to lead to a patently inequitable result".

"The CEO's determination had not been shown to be unreasonable, irregular or wrong so as to lead to a patently inequitable result," says Vodacom.

The telecommunications company says Joosub "had conducted himself honestly and in good faith and the process which he followed was one of apparent fairness and his determination was thus binding upon the parties".

"The CEO was not performing a quasi-judicial function and his process was accordingly not subjected to the rules of natural justice as common law.

"And the CEO's determination was reasonable and, in any event, the amount of R47-million awarded to the applicant  (Mr Makate)  was not only generous but had not been shown by  Mr Makate to have resulted in any patent inequity."