- Makate alleges that his former litigation funders fraudulently misrepresented their ability to finance and indemnify his Please Call Me lawsuit against Vodacom.
- Court papers state that investor funds raised for the litigation were diverted into offshore-linked accounts, while Makate personally covered the litigation costs and carried the risk of adverse costs for years.
- Makate is asking the High Court to declare the funding and arbitration agreements either void or cancelled. He also argues that any claim to 40 percent of the Vodacom settlement has expired.
Nkosana Kenneth Makate has launched a major legal action, accusing his former litigation funders and their associates of fraud, misrepresentation, abuse of corporate personality and breach of contract in a dispute linked to the long-running Please Call Me case against Vodacom.
The case, filed in the High Court in Pretoria, targets Black Rock Mining Ltd, which is registered in the British Virgin Islands, and businessman Errol David Elsdon. Makate claims the structures set up around the litigation funding arrangement were based on false statements about financial strength, legal standing and the ability to fund and indemnify him during the case.
Makate, the inventor of the Please Call Me idea, says the funding arrangement dates back to a November 2011 agreement reached with the late Christiaan Schoeman, who allegedly acted for a company that would be named later.
According to the claim, the nominated company would cover Makate’s legal costs, protect him from adverse cost orders and receive 40 percent of any money recovered from Vodacom. The agreement also allegedly let the funder direct and control the litigation.
Makate says Black Rock was later revealed as the nominated company, but claims he was never given a copy of the nomination agreement, even though he asked for it several times and was promised it.
Alleged misrepresentation and offshore funding scheme
At the heart of the case are allegations that Black Rock and its representatives falsely presented the company as a capable litigation funder, with enough assets and management systems to support the expensive fight against Vodacom.
Makate says the defendants claimed Black Rock would pay legal costs, deposit funds when asked by his attorneys, protect him from adverse cost orders and pay him an upfront R4 million if he succeeded in the case.
However, the claim says Black Rock never had any assets, never traded and failed to keep proper financial records or follow company law in the British Virgin Islands.
The papers also state that the company was deregistered in April 2014 and only restored to the BVI company register in December 2020 after an ex parte application made without Makate’s knowledge.
Makate claims that Schoeman, Elsdon, Tracey Lucille Roscher and Black Rock failed to disclose that the company lacked the means to meet its obligations and instead aimed to raise money from outside investors, keeping some of those funds for themselves.
One of the most serious allegations in the claim is that the defendants did not genuinely believe Black Rock would be able to do what was required by the funding agreement. The action also describes claims involving £150 000 that was allegedly raised from international funders as part of the GDAF Agreement in 2013.
Makate claims Elsdon instructed that the money be sent instead to Cyprus-linked accounts connected to Delcay Holdings Limited and to Elsdon personally, rather than being used for the Please Call Me litigation.
The claim says Elsdon, with help from Schoeman and Roscher, diverted the £150 000 for the benefit of himself and others, not to Black Rock for the Please Call Me litigation.
Arbitration battles and shelf company allegations
Makate further alleges that companies like Raining Men Trade Pty Ltd, Sterling Rand Litigation Fund Pty Ltd and Sterling Rand Pty Ltd were later presented as the real funders of the litigation, even though they were allegedly shelf companies with no assets.
The papers mention arbitration proceedings where, in 2020, an arbitrator allegedly found that naming Raining Men as the funding company was fraudulent.
Makate claims that even after these findings, Black Rock was restored to the BVI company register in December 2020 in bad faith, simply to try to claim a share of the Vodacom litigation proceeds.
The action also refers to a 2025 anti-dissipation application filed by Black Rock against Makate and his former attorney, which was dismissed with costs.
Another key issue is a new arbitration dispute that started between November 2025 and January 2026, in which Black Rock allegedly tried to enforce rights under the funding agreement. Earlier this year, Makate went to the Pretoria High Court to suspend the arbitration.
Makate also relies on Section 20(9) of the Companies Act, arguing that Black Rock’s corporate personality should be ignored because it was allegedly used as a front to protect individuals from liability.
Makate says he carried the litigation burden alone
The claim says Makate personally carried the financial burden of the Please Call Me litigation from at least January 2015, while facing the ongoing risk of being hit with adverse legal cost orders.
Makate claims Black Rock failed to protect him from several adverse cost orders during the Vodacom litigation, including Constitutional Court orders in July 2025 covering the costs of three counsel.
The papers also state that Black Rock failed to pay the R4 million upfront amount that was allegedly due to Makate after the Constitutional Court ruled in his favour in April 2016.
Makate further claims the funding agreement was cancelled in January 2015 after his demands for payment and indemnity went unanswered. The claim says Schoeman later accepted the cancellation in correspondence with Makate’s lawyers.
Alternatively, Makate argues that any claim by Black Rock to 40 percent of the Vodacom settlement has expired under the Prescription Act, since the company allegedly failed to make its claim within the required three-year period.
Makate is asking the court for multiple forms of relief, including declarations that the funding agreement and arbitration clause are invalid from the start or that they were properly cancelled or terminated. He is also seeking punitive attorney and client costs orders against the defendants.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
