Motsepe Firms Face $195 Million Mining Dispute in Tanzania

A $195 million mining dispute involving Tanzanian graphite developer Pula Graphite Partners Tanzania Limited and companies linked to South African billionaire Patrice Motsepe has escalated, with parallel legal proceedings unfolding in both countries. The developments underscore the growing complexity of cross-border litigation in Africa’s minerals sector. Pula Graphite Partners, chaired by former US ambassador to Tanzania Charles Stith, holds exploration interests in the south of the country, a region that has emerged as one of its most prospective graphite corridors as global demand for battery minerals accelerates In 2023, Pula initiated proceedings in the Tanzanian High Court against African Rainbow Minerals (ARM), African Rainbow Capital (ARC), ARCH Sustainable Resources and Motsepe. The suit alleges breaches of non-disclosure and non-compete agreements entered into during discussions around a proposed graphite development in Tanzania. Pula contends that the agreements were designed to protect commercially sensitive information shared as part of a potential investment and partnership process. The matter is scheduled for mention on February 23, a procedural step that could allow the case to advance toward trial after more than two years of preliminary litigation. The proceedings have been characterised by interlocutory applications, procedural disputes and appeals that have delayed substantive arguments on the merits of the case. Pula alleges that confidential information disclosed under the agreements was improperly used in connection with an investment in Evolution Energy Minerals, an Australia-listed company developing a neighbouring graphite project that Pula considers a competitor. Evolution’s project lies within the same geological belt in southern Tanzania, an area known for high-grade flake graphite. According to court filings, the information allegedly shared included non-public geological and technical material. Pula maintains that such information would be valuable to any party assessing competing graphite assets in the same geological corridor. The company further claims it disclosed forward-looking project development strategies, including anticipated timelines and capital expenditure assumptions. Pula says the insights could enable a third party to accelerate or structure a competing project in a way that weakened Pula’s commercial position. Pula also alleges that it shared non-public regulatory and licensing context, including its understanding of licence renewal prospects, engagement with Tanzanian authorities and perceived regulatory risks. In addition, discussions with ARM are said to have involved commercially sensitive financing strategies, potential investor interest and the timing of capital raising. Pula argues that such information, if used by competitors, could undermine its ability to attract funding on favourable terms. In this basis, Pula contends that the alleged conduct caused commercial harm and resulted in future loss of profit linked to its exploration rights, forming the basis of its $195m damages claim. The defendants have rejected the allegations. ARM has denied breaching any agreement, while ARC and ARCH have stated that they never received Pula’s confidential information and did not influence ARCH’s investment decision in Evolution Energy Minerals. ARCH Fund representatives who made the investment decision have confirmed on oath, in witness statements filed in the Tanzanian proceedings, that they never received any of Pula’s confidential information. They state that the information, therefore, played no role in the decision to invest in Evolution Energy. ARC has also relied on legal advice from Johannesburg law firm Webber Wentzel, arguing that Pula’s damages claim lacks merit. According to ARC, the exploration right at issue could not be renewed and was surrendered in or around August 2023, meaning no future profits could have been generated from it. As the Tanzanian case moved into pre-trial stages, including a pending ruling on an application for default judgment, Motsepe-linked entities initiated separate proceedings in South Africa, seeking declaratory relief. In August 2025, a South African court granted an ex parte procedural order allowing ARC to serve its application for declaratory orders on Pula by edictal citation. The order was granted on the basis that Pula is a foreign entity with no offices in South Africa, according to a person familiar with the matter at ARM and who declined to be identified. “The current application before the court is, therefore, not an ex parte application but an application for declaratory orders, which has been notified to Pula,” the source said. “The relief sought includes a declaration that the non-disclosure agreement was concluded between Pula and ARM and, therefore, ARC has no obligations arising from it, cannot be in breach of it and cannot be held liable for contractual damages flowing from any alleged breach.” He said Pula has filed its answering affidavit, to which ARC has responded. However, ARC says Pula failed to file its heads of argument within the time prescribed by court rules, prompting ARC to apply for an expedited hearing date. ARC argues that South African courts are best placed to determine the dispute, as the non-disclosure agreement is governed by South African law, was concluded and executed in South Africa and involves a principal contractual counterparty, ARM, that is domiciled there. ARC has also disputed the Tanzanian court’s jurisdiction. Pula, however, has questioned both the timing and rationale of the South African filing. Stith has previously argued that the dispute involved a Tanzanian company and Tanzanian natural resources, making Tanzania the appropriate forum. Mimi Stith, the president of the Pula Group which owns Pula Graphites Partners Tanzania, said the matter had remained before Tanzanian courts for more than two years, largely due to procedural applications. She said the courts had accommodated the applications in line with due process. Court records show that in December 2023, ARM, ARCH and Motsepe failed to appear at a hearing. In July 2024, the Tanzanian High Court ruled that they no longer had standing in the main case. An application for default judgment was granted and is awaiting a ruling. Later attempts to re-enter the proceedings were dismissed. Pula has also raised concerns about the circumstances under which the South African ex parte order was granted, including questions of urgency and potential conflicts. ARC rejected claims of “court shopping” or delay tactics, insisting that the Tanzanian and South African proceedings were independent. “It has always been ARC’s position that the dispute should be heard and determined by the South African courts,” said Garry Ramalu, an ARC spokesperson. “The South African proceedings have in no way delayed the Tanzanian proceedings.” Legal analysts say the dispute illustrates the increasing legal complexity surrounding cross-border mining investments, particularly where confidentiality agreements, jurisdictional challenges and strategic mineral assets intersect across multiple legal systems.