MTN legal battle heats up

Turkish mobile operator Turkcell has accused MTN of delaying trial by taking its case against the mobile operator to the Constitutional Court.

This comes after the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in April 2025 that South African courts have jurisdiction in this case.

The case dates back to 2013, when Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri and its wholly owned subsidiary, East Asian Consortium (EAC), instituted legal action in the High Court of South Africa against MTN and some of its subsidiaries.

Turkcell and EAC sought substantial damages from MTN, alleging impropriety in the award of the first private mobile telecommunications licence in the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2004.

Specifically, Turkcell alleged that MTN paid bribes to Iranian and South African officials to overturn a public tender awarded initially to Turkcell for a multi-billion-dollar GSM telecom license in Iran.

In 2012, MTN’s board appointed an independent special committee to investigate Turkcell’s allegations. The committee found no evidence of Turkcell’s allegations and exonerated MTN. 

However, in 2013, Turkcell took the matter to a South African High Court, asking the court to award an estimated $4.2 billion (approximately R78 billion) in damages for lost business, revenue, and profits.

Ten years later, in 2022, the High Court ruled in MTN’s favour, with the matter coming down to jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed Turkcell’s case against MTN with costs on the basis that the South African courts did not have jurisdiction. 

Turkcell appealed this ruling at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which set aside the High Court’s judgment and decided that the South African courts do have jurisdiction.

However, it upheld the High Court ruling that Iranian law applies to key aspects of the dispute.

“The decision to uphold the appeal does not relate to the merits of Turkcell’s claims or the allegations made against MTN Group, which have not yet been tested in court,” MTN said. 

“MTN has always maintained that the Turkcell litigation was without merit and has expressed confidence that it would successfully defend these proceedings.”

MTN said it intends to approach the Constitutional Court to appeal this decision.

Turkcell response

Turkcell has noted that MTN, Phuthuma Nhleko, and Irene Charnley have approached the Constitutional Court.

The Turkish operator said this case has significant implications for South Africa’s stance on international bribery and corruption.

Turkcell’s global counsel, Cedric Soule, said this is “the latest attempt by MTN and the other defendants to delay trial”.

“The SCA clearly decided that South African courts have jurisdiction in this matter and unequivocally rejected all of the objections raised by MTN, Phuthuma Nhleko, and Irene Charnley.”

“We remain confident that when the full evidence is presented at trial, it will demonstrate that MTN engaged in corrupt practices to secure the Iranian licence initially awarded to Turkcell.”

Turkcell believes the Constitutional Court should decline to hear the appeal filed by MTN and the other defendants.

According to the operator, the SCA’s majority judgment was well-reasoned and correctly applied the established legal principles regarding jurisdiction that MTN and the other defendants invoked to seek to delay the trial. 

“The SCA’s decision also represents a significant victory for the principle that South African companies should be held accountable in South Africa for their conduct abroad,” it said.

“After twelve years of procedural delays, Turkcell looks forward to the opportunity to present its evidence in court and seek appropriate redress for the more than US$4.2 billion in damages suffered due to MTN’s alleged misconduct,” Soule added.