Key Takeaways
- Errol Elsdon, a businessman and former Black Rock Mining director, has launched defamation proceedings against Nkosana Makate over statements that labelled him a fraudster.
- Elsdon asserts that he and a group of private backers funded Makate’s “Please Call Me” claim through Black Rock, which was contractually nominated as the funding vehicle in 2011.
- He argues the funding agreement is a legitimate litigation‑finance contract, not extortion, and that Makate is now trying to avoid its terms after securing a reported R1 billion settlement from Vodacom.
- Elsdon dismisses concerns about Black Rock’s British Virgin Islands registration and temporary deregistration as administrative lapses that do not affect the validity of the original nomination.
- The case highlights the nascent state of third‑party litigation funding in South Africa and its potential to enable meritorious claims that would otherwise lack financial backing.
- With the matter set for public hearing, both parties intend to lay bare the full financial and documentary record behind one of the country’s most celebrated corporate disputes.
Background of the Please Call Me Litigation
The “Please Call Me” saga originated when former Vodacom employee Nkosana Makate alleged that he invented the popular “Please Call Me” service without receiving compensation. After years of stalled negotiations, Makate pursued legal action against Vodacom, eventually securing a settlement reported at around one billion rand. The case has long been portrayed as a classic David‑versus‑Goliath story, with an individual taking on a telecoms giant. However, recent developments have challenged that narrative, bringing the financial backing behind the claim into sharp focus.
Elsdon’s Role and Funding Arrangement
Errol Elsdon confirmed that he, together with the late Christiaan Schoeman, was approached by Makate in 2011 with an unfunded, untested claim. Elsdon states that he agreed to provide financial support not as a lone benefactor but as part of a consortium of private backers and institutional partners, channelled through Black Rock Mining Ltd. He emphasizes that the capital was advanced entirely at risk: if the litigation had failed, none of the funders would have recovered their investment. This risk‑sharing model, he argues, is the essence of legitimate litigation finance.
Elsdon’s Defamation Claim Initiation
Following statements published on June 7, 2026, in which Elsdon was allegedly depicted as a fraudster, he instructed his attorneys to institute defamation proceedings against Makate. In a press release, Elsdon declared that he would not accept being branded a criminal for honouring a contractual obligation and would vindicate his reputation in court. He framed the defamation action as both a personal reputational safeguard and a broader defence of the litigation‑funding business model.
Dispute Over the Funding Agreement
Elsdon’s position rests on a written funding agreement concluded in 2011, under which Black Rock was designated the funding party. He notes that an arbitrator has since affirmed that Black Rock was the sole validly nominated entity under that agreement and that the nomination was never cancelled. The core contention, according to Elsdon, is not whether the agreement existed but Makate’s alleged attempt, years later, to evade its contractual obligations after benefiting from the settlement.
Makate’s Counterclaim and Extortion Allegation
Makate has reportedly characterised the enforcement of the funding agreement as extortion, a claim Elsdon rejects with indignation. He argues that extortion involves demanding something to which one has no right, whereas a funding agreement is a freely signed contract whereby risk‑takers share in the outcome. Asking to be held to the very terms that enabled the claim to reach court, Elsdon maintains, is simply how litigation finance operates worldwide and does not constitute coercion.
Questions About Black Rock’s BVI Registration
Some scrutiny has focused on Black Rock’s registration in the British Virgin Islands, particularly a period when the company was deregistered over an unpaid annual fee. Elsdon dismisses this as an administrative lapse, pointing out that the firm was subsequently restored and that, under BVI law, restoration treats the deregistration as if it never occurred. Moreover, he stresses that the original nomination of Black Rock predated any deregistration, rendering the issue irrelevant to the funding agreement’s validity.
Implications for Litigation Funding in South Africa
Elsdon argues that the case underscores the importance of third‑party litigation funding in enabling ordinary South Africans to pursue meritorious claims that would otherwise lack the financial means to reach court. He notes that such funding remains relatively uncommon in South Africa compared with the UK and Australia, but its use is growing. Without financiers like those behind Black Rock, he contends, claims akin to Makate’s would likely never see the light of day, limiting access to justice for many.
Current Status and Next Steps
The matter is now set to be heard in the High Court, where both parties intend to present the full record of financial transactions, agreements, and communications. Elsdon promises that the evidence and documents will speak for themselves, ending the era of a single‑sided narrative. He anticipates that the public hearing will clarify who contributed what, at what financial risk, and whether Black Rock is entitled to its contractual share of the Vodacom settlement proceeds.
Conclusion and Elsdon’s Final Statement
In summing up his stance, Elsdon declares that he helped a man with nothing turn a stalled, unfunded claim into a landmark result. He asks only that Black Rock be held to the agreement that made that outcome possible, emphasizing that upholding the contract is not a threat but a fundamental principle of how litigation finance functions. The forthcoming courtroom battle will therefore test not only the parties’ rights but also the broader acceptance of risk‑sharing legal financing in South Africa.

