Motsepe Mining Dispute Spills Into SA Courts as Tanzanian Judgment Nears

A legal battle crosses borders

With a potentially explosive $195 million judgment looming in Tanzania, billionaire Patrice Motsepe and several companies linked to him now find themselves at the centre of a growing legal storm, one that has spilled across borders and landed squarely in South Africa’s courts.

At the heart of the dispute is a Tanzanian mining company, Pula Graphite, which accuses Motsepe and a network of associated firms of breaching a confidentiality agreement and using sensitive information to back a rival graphite project. As the Tanzanian High Court edges closer to a ruling, Pula claims Motsepe’s companies are trying to shield themselves by turning to the Johannesburg High Court.

From collaboration talks to courtroom conflict

The roots of the case stretch back to 2019, when Pula and African Rainbow Minerals (ARM) signed a confidentiality agreement. At the time, both parties were exploring a possible partnership around a graphite project in Tanzania’s Ruangwa region an area where Pula had already been operating for years.

According to Pula, it opened its books during those talks, sharing detailed operational data, project plans and market analysis. The deal never materialised. But in 2022, Pula says it discovered that ARCH Sustainable Resources a private equity fund in which Motsepe has a significant interest, had invested in a neighbouring graphite venture owned by Australian firm Evolution Energy Minerals.

That discovery triggered legal action in 2023, with Pula alleging its confidential information had been misused.

Motsepe and the companies involved deny the claims. He has previously described the allegations as “baseless and nonsensical”, insisting he does not recall ever seeing Pula’s confidential data. African Rainbow Capital (ARC) has also maintained that it was not bound by the original agreement, which it says applied only to ARM.

Why South Africa, and why now?

Pula’s frustration centres not just on the substance of the dispute, but on the timing and strategy of recent legal moves.

In August 2025, ARC approached the Johannesburg High Court on an ex parte basis meaning without notifying the opposing party seeking permission to serve court papers via edictal citation. A few months later, ARC asked for the matter to be fast-tracked as a commercial court case.

To Pula, this looks less like routine legal housekeeping and more like a calculated delay.

The Tanzanian court is expected to set a trial date within the next two months, and Pula argues the sudden pivot to South Africa is an attempt to sidestep an unfavourable outcome.

Standing lost in Tanzania

Complicating matters is the procedural history in Dar es Salaam. While ARC filed a defence in Tanzania, Motsepe, ARM and ARCH failed to appear at a scheduled hearing in December 2023. The Tanzanian High Court later ruled that those parties no longer had standing in the case due to that failure.

A default judgment application by Pula has since been granted and is now awaiting a ruling. Attempts by Motsepe and the affected companies to re-enter the Tanzanian proceedings were rejected a key reason, Pula says, why South African courts have suddenly come into play.

“This dispute ran in Tanzania for more than two years,” Pula said in a statement. “Only after adverse procedural developments did the Motsepe-linked parties turn to South Africa, and they did so without notice.”

Bigger questions about process and power

Beyond the mining claims, Pula argues the case now raises deeper concerns about legal process, transparency and accountability, particularly when powerful business interests are involved.

The company has even questioned whether the acting judge in the ex parte application should recuse herself, citing potential conflicts linked to her role at the Mineworkers Investment Company.

Charles Stith, chair of Pula Group and a former US ambassador to Tanzania, has been blunt: “By the court’s own ruling, those parties no longer have standing in the main case. We anticipate a favourable outcome, and it’s in that context that South Africa suddenly comes into focus.”

ARC, which delisted from the JSE last year, argues that South African courts are the correct forum to hear the dispute and that they have jurisdiction. Pula strongly disagrees, accusing Motsepe’s companies of forum shopping in a bid to avoid accountability in Tanzania.

As judgment day approaches in Dar es Salaam, the dispute is no longer just about graphite or confidentiality agreements. It has become a test of how cross-border corporate battles are fought and whether legal manoeuvring can outpace a court’s final word.

{Source: Moneyweb}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com