Kevin Jenkins: Please Call Me Funder's Pivotal Role in Vodacom Case

• Kevin Jenkins, a litigation funder, was part of an early team that contributed R750,000 to Nkosana Makate's legal battle against Vodacom.
• Jenkins's involvement in the Please Call Me case spans two decades, alongside a consistent circle of funders and legal professionals, including Makate's lawyer Wilna Lubbe and senior counsel Cedric Puckrin.
• Disputes over funding amounts persist, with Black Rock Mining claiming R4.39 million for the Makate litigation, while Makate and Lubbe assert a contribution of R8,000 at most.
• A 2016 High Court case, Odyssey Consultancy v Hurwitz, revealed Jenkins's company utilized Puckrin's professional standing to pursue an unpaid debt.
• Jenkins shares directorships and business memberships with key figures like Cedric Puckrin and Wilna Lubbe in entities such as Springgrove Interdenominational Church and Festinamus Vervoerdienste.

The intricate network of relationships involving Kevin Jenkins also encompasses shared directorships and business interests with his professional associates.

Businessman and litigation funder Kevin Brian Jenkins played a pivotal role in the protracted legal battle surrounding the Nkosana Makate Vodacom settlement. He was an integral member of an initial team that provided R750,000 to support inventor Nkosana Makate in his fight against Vodacom for a share of its 'Please Call Me' profits. Jenkins, who until recently collaborated with Makate’s lawyer, Wilna Lubbe of Stemela Lubbe, has consistently appeared alongside the same group of early funders over a span of two decades.

His involvement was highlighted in 2019 when the late former advocate Christiaan Schoeman testified at an arbitration hearing. Schoeman stated that Jenkins introduced him to Makate and was part of the collective effort to raise the initial R750,000. This funding group also included Schoeman himself, his ex-wife Wilma Schoeman, Black Rock Mining representative Errol Elsdon, and Tracey Roscher, all contributing to Makate's legal expenses.

The initial R750,000 funding for the Please Call Me case involved a diverse group, with Kevin Jenkins among those contributing. However, the exact financial contributions and subsequent entitlements have become a point of contention. Errol Elsdon, representing Black Rock Mining, is currently seeking 40% of Makate’s confidential settlement with Vodacom, asserting that he furnished R4.39 million for the extensive litigation. Conversely, Makate and his lawyer, Wilna Lubbe, contend that Elsdon’s contribution amounted to a maximum of R8,000.

Elsdon testified during arbitration hearings that his first encounter with Makate occurred in 2011, facilitated by Schoeman and Jenkins. That same year, Schoeman formalized a funding agreement on his own behalf and for a company yet to be named, which was subsequently recognized by most courts as Black Rock in mid-2013. A 2018 High Court ruling by Pretoria High Court Judge Neil Tuchten further corroborated Jenkins's status as an initial investor, noting that Schoeman had offered “equity in the venture” to Elsdon, Roscher, his ex-wife, and Jenkins, among others. Elsdon informed ITWeb this past July that he and Schoeman had a long history in litigation funding prior to meeting Makate. Schoeman’s original intent was for Jenkins, Lubbe, and advocate Cedric Puckrin to temporarily house their interests within Black Rock, although Schoeman and Elsdon later had a falling out. An email from Elsdon to his lawyer, Walton Eddlestone, quoted in a 2018 London claim by Black Rock’s Bermuda funders, explicitly stated, “The case was brought to us by Kevin Jenkins. You may recall that he brought us a number of matters previously.”

The professional connections of Kevin Jenkins extend well beyond the Nkosana Makate Vodacom settlement, revealing a pattern of shared ventures with key legal figures. A 2016 Mail & Guardian article, for instance, featured a photograph caption identifying Jenkins as a funder alongside Makate, Wilna Lubbe, and senior counsel Cedric Puckrin, who represented Makate for many years, even continuing after experiencing a heart attack. This highlights the long-standing collaboration between these individuals.

Further illustrating these deep ties, Jenkins and Puckrin were both involved in a 2016 High Court judgment, Odyssey Consultancy v Hurwitz. In this case, Jenkins’s company, Odyssey, initiated legal action against businessman Dale Hurwitz over an unpaid debt. The court proceedings revealed that Jenkins had utilized Puckrin’s “name and reputation (and stature as a senior counsel)” to pressure the defaulting Hurwitz into making both monthly and capital repayments. Judge Ranchod ultimately determined that this action did not constitute the “fraudulent misrepresentation” that Hurwitz had alleged. Hurwitz’s additional claim of being misled into signing an acknowledgment of debt, alleging Schoeman befriended him without disclosing his representation of Odyssey, was denied by Schoeman and subsequently abandoned by Hurwitz. The court ruled in Odyssey’s favor, ordering Hurwitz to settle the debt.

The intricate network of relationships involving Kevin Jenkins also encompasses shared directorships and business interests with his professional associates. Both Cedric Puckrin and Jenkins serve as directors of Springgrove Interdenominational Church, a non-profit company registered on July 2, 2025. Gert Pieter Daniel Lubbe is also listed as an active director alongside them in the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) records.

Another business connection is evident in Festinamus Vervoerdienste, where Jenkins became a member on December 5, 2023, joining Wilna Lubbe. These CIPC records underscore the multifaceted and enduring nature of the relationships between Kevin Jenkins and his legal and business partners.

This article highlights the complex and often intertwined relationships between litigation funders, legal practitioners, and their associated business ventures in high-stakes South African cases. Lawyers should note the intricate web of connections and potential conflicts of interest that can arise, necessitating rigorous due diligence when engaging with or assessing litigation finance arrangements.

Source: Original reporting via ITWeb