Errol Elsdon vs Nkosana Makate: Why the “Please Call Me” Defamation Fight Matters

The long-running “Please Call Me” saga has entered yet another dramatic chapter, shifting from a historic battle between an inventor and a telecoms giant to a high-stakes dispute over reputation, litigation funding, and who truly carried the financial risk behind one of South Africa’s most closely watched corporate legal cases.

At the centre of the latest turn is Errol Elsdon, a businessman and former director of Black Rock Mining Ltd, who says he helped bankroll Nkosana Makate’s landmark case against Vodacom. Elsdon has now announced defamation proceedings against Makate after statements published on June 7, 2026, allegedly portrayed him as a fraudster.

For years, the public story of “Please Call Me” has largely followed Makate’s journey: a former Vodacom employee who claimed he invented the service and fought for compensation after the feature became widely used. That battle eventually produced a settlement with Vodacom, reported in some accounts at around one billion rand and elsewhere believed to be closer to hundreds of millions.

But Elsdon’s new legal offensive reframes the story. His position is that Makate’s case was not simply a lone inventor taking on a telecommunications giant. Instead, he says the claim was revived, restructured and funded through a network of backers who took significant financial risk — and who now want the contractual share they say they were promised.

A Reputation Fight Inside a Money Fight

Elsdon’s defamation action is not separate from the broader financial dispute. It grows directly out of the battle over the proceeds of Makate’s settlement with Vodacom.

The immediate trigger is Elsdon’s claim that Makate falsely branded him a criminal in relation to disputed funding agreements. In a press statement, Elsdon rejected that characterisation in forceful terms.

“I was willing to be called many things when I agreed to fund this case,” Elsdon said. “A criminal was never one of them. I will not be branded a criminal for honouring a contract, and I will answer that accusation where it belongs: in court.”

That statement captures the tone of the latest conflict. Elsdon is not merely defending a financial claim. He is defending his name, the legitimacy of Black Rock’s claimed role, and the broader principle of litigation finance — a model in which funders pay the costs of legal claims in exchange for a share of any eventual award or settlement.

Makate, however, has reportedly taken the opposite position. He has rejected Black Rock’s claim and challenged the validity of the agreements underpinning it. He has also alleged forgery and fraud, claims that have now intensified the dispute beyond a contractual disagreement.

From “David Against Goliath” to a Dispute Over Funders

The “Please Call Me” case became famous because of its underdog narrative. Makate was widely seen as the former employee who challenged Vodacom over an idea that became part of everyday mobile communication in South Africa.

But Elsdon disputes the simplicity of that public story.

“This was never simply David against Goliath,” the statement reads. “This ‘David’ was backed, from the outset, by a team of funders through Black Rock.”

According to Elsdon, Makate first approached him and the late Christiaan Schoeman in 2011, when the claim was unfunded, untested and stalled. He further alleges that the case’s original legal framing was fundamentally flawed and that the cause of action was “substantially reworked” before funding was committed.

That argument is central to Elsdon’s position. He is not only saying money was provided. He is saying the case was materially shaped, prepared and enabled through outside backing.

“The funding was not one man’s money, and Black Rock was not one man’s pocket,” Elsdon said.

He says capital came from a group of private backers as well as arms-length institutional funding partners. A professional legal team was retained, partly on a contingency basis. Crucially, he argues that the funding was advanced entirely at risk, meaning the funders would have recovered nothing if the case against Vodacom had failed.

The 2011 Funding Agreement at the Heart of the Dispute

The legal conflict now before the High Court centres on whether Black Rock, as the nominated funding vehicle, is entitled to a contractual share of Makate’s Vodacom settlement.

Elsdon’s case rests on a written funding agreement concluded in 2011. Under that agreement, he says, Black Rock was designated as the funding party. He also says an arbitrator has confirmed that Black Rock was the only entity validly nominated under the agreement and that the nomination was never cancelled.

“What is in issue is not whether that agreement was made,” the statement reads, “but Makate’s attempt, years later, to escape its terms.”

Black Rock’s reported claim is substantial. It has been described as a claim to 40% of Makate’s Vodacom payout. That figure explains why the dispute has become so intense. Depending on the final value of the settlement, the amount at stake could run into hundreds of millions of rand.

Makate has pushed back firmly. He has reportedly characterised the enforcement of the agreement as extortion, a description Elsdon rejects.

“Extortion is a demand for something you have no right to,” Elsdon said. “A funding agreement is the opposite: a contract, freely signed, under which those who take the risk share in the result. Asking to be held to the very terms that brought a claim to court is not a threat. It is how litigation finance works the world over.”

Makate’s Counterposition: Fraud, Forgery and the NPA

Makate’s response turns the dispute in a very different direction. He reportedly finds it strange that Elsdon would sue him for defamation, given what Makate says is an already established arbitration finding that his signature had been forged on a key agreement between the parties.

“This fraud is [the] subject of a criminal case that [has been] pending for years, which the National Prosecuting Authority [NPA] needs to decide [whether] to prosecute or grant me a nolle prosequi [a decision not to prosecute, which would allow Makate to pursue a private prosecution].”

Makate has also reportedly said:

“The Black Rock case now before the high court is about the perpetuation of fraud which was committed under [the nominated litigation funding entity] Raining Men.”

He added:

“There is no need for Mr Elsdon to sue me, the fraud matter is already before the high court, assigned to Judge Lenyai. All he must now do is respond in person to those court papers as a respondent.”

These statements show why the defamation case may become more than a side issue. If Elsdon says Makate defamed him by calling him a criminal or fraudster, Makate’s likely defence may depend heavily on the underlying documents, agreements, arbitration findings and fraud allegations.

In other words, the defamation case could force the parties to revisit the very evidence at the centre of the funding dispute.

Why Black Rock’s Offshore Status Became an Issue

Another layer of controversy concerns Black Rock’s registration in the British Virgin Islands and a period during which the company was reportedly deregistered over an unpaid annual fee.

Elsdon’s statement dismisses this as an administrative lapse rather than a reason to invalidate Black Rock’s position. He says the company was later restored and that, under BVI law, restoration is treated as though the deregistration never occurred. He also argues that Black Rock’s original nomination under the funding agreement predated the lapse.

“ These are technical questions, now properly before the courts,” the statement reads.

The point matters because Makate’s camp has challenged whether Black Rock genuinely existed or played the funding role it now claims. Elsdon’s side, by contrast, argues that the corporate-registration issue is a technical matter that does not erase the funding agreement or Black Rock’s rights under it.

Litigation Funding Under the Spotlight

Beyond the personalities involved, the case raises broader questions about litigation funding in South Africa.

Litigation funding allows claimants who may not have the resources to pursue expensive legal battles to access capital from third parties. In exchange, funders typically receive a percentage of any award or settlement. The model is more established in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Australia, but it remains less common and more publicly contested in South Africa.

Elsdon presents the “Please Call Me” case as an example of why such funding matters.

“Without it, this claim, like many meritorious claims before it, would never have seen the light of day,” he said.

That argument may resonate with those who see litigation finance as a mechanism for access to justice. Major corporate litigation can be prohibitively expensive. Without outside support, ordinary claimants may never get their cases to court, even when they believe they have strong claims.

But the Makate dispute also illustrates the risks. When a funded claim succeeds, disputes can erupt over the size of the funder’s share, the validity of agreements, the identity of the true funding party and whether the claimant fully understood the long-term consequences of the arrangement.

The Settlement That Did Not End the Saga

Makate’s settlement with Vodacom was widely expected to close one of South Africa’s longest-running corporate battles. Instead, it appears to have opened a new phase.

Vodacom launched the “Please Call Me” service in 2001, allowing customers without airtime to send a free SMS request for another person to call them back. Makate, who worked for Vodacom, has long maintained that he invented the idea and was not properly compensated.

After years of litigation, Vodacom and Makate eventually reached a settlement. But the confidential nature of the settlement has left room for dispute over the precise amount. Some reports place the figure around R750 million, while Elsdon’s side has referred to a settlement reported at one billion rand.

Black Rock says it funded Makate’s legal fight to the tune of R4.3 million and is entitled to 40% of any payout. Makate disputes both the validity of the agreement and the claim that Elsdon or Black Rock funded his legal campaign in a meaningful way.

In November last year, Black Rock filed an urgent application in the Johannesburg High Court to freeze 40% of the payout. That urgent application was rejected. Makate later went on the legal offensive in May this year, asking the Pretoria High Court for a declaratory order that the funding agreement was void on the grounds of fraud. In June, he escalated the matter further by seeking a nolle prosequi certificate from the NPA for alleged forgery and fraud.

Now Elsdon’s defamation action adds another courtroom battle to an already crowded legal landscape.

What the Courts May Need to Decide

The dispute now appears to involve several overlapping questions.

First, there is the contractual question: Was there a valid funding agreement, and if so, does it entitle Black Rock to 40% of Makate’s settlement?

Second, there is the factual question: Who funded Makate’s litigation, how much was advanced, through which entities and under what terms?

Third, there is the fraud and forgery question: Were any signatures or documents improperly created, altered or relied upon?

Fourth, there is the defamation question: Did Makate make statements that unlawfully damaged Elsdon’s reputation, or were those statements defensible in light of the surrounding legal dispute?

Finally, there is the public-interest question: What does this case say about litigation funding, access to justice and the risks of private financing in major legal claims?

The answers may shape more than Makate’s payout. They may influence how future litigation-funding agreements are drafted, enforced and scrutinised in South African courts.

Elsdon’s Promise: Documents Will Speak

Elsdon has framed the coming court process as an opportunity to correct the public record.

“For years, this story has been told in a single voice,” he said. “Now the evidence and documents will speak for themselves.”

His final summary is equally pointed:

“I helped a man who had nothing turn a stalled and unfunded claim into a landmark result. I ask only that Black Rock be held to the agreement that made it possible.”

That language shows the emotional and reputational stakes. Elsdon wants recognition not only for a claimed financial entitlement, but for what he describes as a decisive role in helping Makate bring a major corporate claim to life.

Makate, meanwhile, continues to contest the foundation of Black Rock’s claim and has pushed the matter toward fraud allegations and possible criminal proceedings.

Why This Case Still Matters

The “Please Call Me” saga has always been bigger than a telecoms product. It has become a national story about ideas, ownership, corporate accountability and the ability of an individual to challenge a powerful company.

The latest chapter complicates that legacy. It asks whether the celebrated victory was made possible by funders who now deserve a share, or whether the funding claim itself is tainted by disputed documents and alleged fraud.

The defamation action ensures that the next phase will not only be about money. It will also be about credibility, reputation and the public record.

For South Africa, the case may become an important test of how courts handle litigation-finance disputes after a major settlement has been reached. For Makate, it is a fight to preserve the benefit of a long-awaited payout. For Elsdon and Black Rock, it is a fight to enforce what they say was the agreement that helped make the payout possible.

The story that began with a simple mobile-phone feature is now a complex legal battle over contracts, alleged fraud, reputation and the price of backing an underdog.