With judgment looming in Tanzania over a $195m mining claim against Patrice Motsepe and several of his companies, the SA courts are being asked to intervene. From Moneyweb.

Pula Graphite alleges that Motsepe-linked companies used confidential 2019 data to back a rival project. Image: Leon Sadiki/Bloomberg

Billionaire Patrice Motsepe and several of his companies have been accused of seeking protection from SA courts from an imminent ruling in Tanzania in a mining dispute, in which he and several Motsepe-linked companies stand accused of breaching a confidentiality agreement signed in 2019 with Pula Graphite in Tanzania.

In August 2025, one the respondent companies, African Rainbow Capital (ARC), approached the Joburg High Court on an ex parte basis (where only one side argues) for an order allowing it serve papers by way of edictal citation, where an opponent’s whereabouts are unknown.

In December, ARC wrote to Justice Sutherland of the Joburg High Court, requesting that its application be designated a commercial court matter and set down for an expedited hearing.

Pula says these are transparent delaying tactics by Motsepe and his companies, as the Tanzanian court is expected to set down a trial date within the next two months. The other parties named in the case by Pula are Motsepe, African Rainbow Minerals (ARM), and ARCH Sustainable Resources.

Read: Pula in a rush to court before African Rainbow Capital delists [2025]

The case was brought by Pula in 2023 over an alleged breach by of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that gave Motsepe’s companies access to Pula’s confidential information, which was then used to invest in a rival graphite project in the Ruangwa region of Tanzania.

The Motsepe companies deny the claims.

Confidentiality agreement

This stems from a 2019 confidentiality agreement, under which both sides explored the possibility of collaborating on a graphite project in the Ruangwa region, where Pula had been mining for several years.

Pula disclosed a trove of information on its operations, project plans, as well as analysis and market trends.

No deal materialised between the two, but in October 2022 Pula learned that ARCH Sustainable Resources, a private equity fund in which Motsepe has a substantial interest, had invested in a neighbouring graphite project owned by Australian exploration company Evolution Energy Minerals.

Read: Motsepe company appeals to SA courts over R3.4bn claim in Tanzania [2025]

Moneyweb reached out to ARM and ARC for comment but did not receive a response. The story will be updated should a reply be received.

Motsepe has previously dismissed the claims by Pula as “baseless and nonsensical”, saying he has no personal recollection of seeing Pula’s confidential information. ARC’s public position is that they are not bound by the agreement, which was signed between ARM and Pula and did not apply to the others cited in the papers.

The dispute has been mired in jurisdictional battles for much of the last two years.

Pula has accused Motsepe and his companies of ‘forum shopping’ by approaching the SA courts for protection from an imminent ruling by the Tanzanian High Court.

ARC, which was delisted from the JSE last year, has argued that the South African courts are the appropriate venue to hear its case and have jurisdiction over the matter.

Only ARC filed a defence in the Dar es Salaam court, which ruled the remaining respondents no longer had standing in the case due to an earlier failure to appear in court.

Ex parte process

“The use of an ex parte process, together with unresolved questions around judicial disclosure and perceived conflicts under the Code of Judicial Conduct, has shifted this beyond a contractual fight into a story about process, transparency, and whether the safeguards meant to protect public confidence in the courts are being applied consistently when powerful interests are involved,” Pula said in a statement sent to Moneyweb.

Listen/read:
R1bn in management fees later, ARC Investments to exit JSE [2025]
ARC on its plans to move home and delist from JSE [2025]

“For more than two years, the dispute proceeded in Tanzania. Only after a series of adverse procedural developments did [the] Motsepe-linked parties turn to South Africa, doing so on an ex-parte basis, without notice to the opposing parties. That timing is central to the concern.

“In December 2023, ARM, ARCH, and Dr Patrice Motsepe personally failed to appear at a scheduled hearing in Tanzania. No explanation was provided at the time. In July 2024, the Tanzania High Court ruled that those parties no longer had standing in the main case due to their failure to appear, effectively placing them in default.”

Pula Group’s application for default judgment against the Motsepe respondents has since been granted and is currently awaiting a ruling in Tanzania.

Pula says subsequent petitions by ARM, ARCH, and Motsepe to re-enter the proceedings were denied by the Tanzanian court. This, says Pula, is why they have approached the SA court for protection.

Statements from Pula Group

“By the court’s own ruling, those parties no longer have standing in the main case,” said Charles Stith, chair of Pula Group.

“We anticipate a favourable ruling on our default application, and it is in that context that South Africa suddenly comes into focus.”

Stith is a former US ambassador to Tanzania.

Pula has also questioned whether the acting judge in the ex parte case should not recuse herself given her role at the Mineworkers Investment Company and the potential conflicts of interest that could pose.