A Tanzanian court has struck out a claim worth roughly R3.2 billion against Patrice Motsepe and companies linked to him, ending a chapter in a dispute that has run through the country’s High Court for months. The ruling, delivered on 9 October, was confirmed by African Rainbow Minerals Ltd in a statement issued on Wednesday.
The case was brought by Pula Group LLC, which together with its Tanzanian unit sought damages of $195 million, about R3.2 billion, from Motsepe and his affiliated firms. Those firms were named as African Rainbow Minerals Ltd, African Rainbow Capital Investments Ltd and ARCH Sustainable Resources GPCO Ltd. According to court documents, Pula alleged that the group breached a non-compete contract when it invested in Australia’s Evolution Energy Minerals Ltd, whose Chilalo project sits next to Pula’s own graphite project in Tanzania.
For ordinary observers, the case raised questions that go beyond a commercial quarrel between mining interests: how courts handle cross-border investment disputes, and how confidently businesses and communities tied to resource projects can plan their futures when litigation of this scale hangs over them. The High Court’s decision now provides a measure of clarity, at least until the next legal move.
African Rainbow Minerals welcomed the outcome. “ARM welcomes the judgment,” the company said. “ARM has always viewed the Pula claim to be unfounded and fabricated.”
The 9 October ruling was not the first time the matter had stumbled. Judge FM Mirindo had earlier struck the case off the roll in a judgment dated 7 August, on the grounds that Pula had failed to join Evolution companies he considered necessary parties. Importantly, the judge did not determine whether the confidentiality contract had been breached, and he awarded no damages. In other words, the merits of the dispute were never tested; the case fell away on procedural grounds.
Pula did not accept that outcome for long. On 24 August, the group filed a notice of appeal, stating that it “was dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court of the United Republic of Tanzania” and that it appealed “against the whole of that decision”. That appeal remains part of the picture even after the latest ruling.
The company’s leadership has signalled that the fight may continue. “We have appealed the earlier ruling on this case and beyond that we have the option to refile the suit,” said chair Charles Stith. “This is not over by a long shot.”
That warning matters for anyone following the case, because it means the legal uncertainty surrounding the investment and the neighbouring graphite projects has not been fully resolved. The 9 October judgment removes a large damages claim from the court’s roll, but the underlying disagreement over the non-compete arrangement has not been adjudicated. Pula retains both its pending appeal and the possibility of bringing the suit again, which means the parties, and the projects at the centre of the dispute, may face further proceedings.
For the companies involved, the judgment lifts a significant legal overhang. African Rainbow Minerals, African Rainbow Capital Investments and ARCH Sustainable Resources GPCO had all been named in a claim seeking close to R3.2 billion, a sum large enough to draw attention well beyond Tanzania’s borders. The company’s statement that it has “always viewed the Pula claim to be unfounded and fabricated” reflects how sharply the two sides differ, not only on the facts but on the legitimacy of the case itself.
What happens next will depend on Pula’s choices. Its chair has made clear that the group sees multiple routes forward, from the appeal already filed to a possible refiling of the suit. Until one of those paths is exhausted or abandoned, the dispute that began with two adjacent graphite projects in Tanzania will remain unresolved, even as the largest damages claim against Motsepe’s companies has now been struck out.
The ruling was reported in detail by Moneyweb; further coverage is available at https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/africa/tanzanian-court-strikes-out-r3-2bn-case-against-motsepe/.