Motsepe group under fire following Tanzanian court ruling

Pula Group has hit back at African Rainbow Minerals (ARM) over its claim that Pula’s $195m damages claim for an alleged breach of confidentiality over a mining project in Tanzania was ‘unfounded and fabricated’. As reported in Legalbrief Africa, Tanzania’s High Court last month struck out Pula’s application for default judgment against ARM, Patrice Motsepe and Motsepe-linked investment firm ARCH Sustainable Resource, ruling that it had failed to join key parties to the proceedings. Moneyweb reports that the companies specifically mentioned as absent from the proceedings are Australia’s Evolution Energy Minerals and Tanzania’s Ngwena Tanzania Limited. In his August judgment, Judge Mirindo described both as being under Patrice Motsepe’s common control. The dispute dates back to 2019, when ARM signed a confidentiality agreement while considering an investment in Pula’s nearby Ruangwa graphite project. No deal materialised, but Pula alleges that confidential information shared during the talks was later used to support an investment by ARCH in the competing Chilalo graphite project – an allegation denied by the defendants.

ARM issued a statement welcoming the Tanzanian court’s latest decision to strike out Pula’s application for default judgment: ‘ARM has always viewed the Pula claim as unfounded and fabricated. It said it will take all appropriate legal steps to protect its rights and interests and will keep stakeholders informed of material developments in this matter. However, Pula has now accused the SA mining group of materially misrepresenting the Tanzanian court’s ruling. ‘ARM issued its public statement on 14 October 2026, six days before the written judgment became publicly available on the Tanzanian High Court’s official website on 20 October,’ Pula said. Moneyweb reports that it labelled Pula’s allegations as ‘unfounded and fabricated’, creating the impression that the underlying dispute had been resolved in its favour. The Tanzanian court confirmed that Pula may file a fresh suit against the four original defendants, joining Evolution, Ngwena and any other parties against which it has a cause of action. ‘ARM was quick to declare victory in a dispute, yet the judgment tells a fundamentally different story,’ said Pula group chair Charles Stith. Pula said it remained committed to pursuing its claims through the appropriate legal channels.