A US$195 Million Graphite Claim Against Patrice Motsepe Is Back
TANZANIA · POWER PLAYERS
Key Facts
—The appeal: Pula Group filed a notice of appeal on 24 August against the whole of the Tanzanian decision.
—The ruling: Judge F.M. Mirindo struck the US$195 million claim off the roll on 7 August because Pula had not joined companies he considered necessary parties.
—Not a merits finding: The judge awarded no damages and made no finding on whether the confidentiality and non-compete agreement had been breached.
—The defendants: Pula sued Patrice Motsepe, African Rainbow Minerals, African Rainbow Capital Investments and ARCH Sustainable Resources in 2023.
—The ground in dispute: Evolution Energy Minerals’ Chilalo graphite project sits next to Pula’s own licence area in the Ruangwa district of Lindi region.
—The claim may grow: Pula’s chairman says the figure could rise above US$195 million after an Evolution investor document valued that company at US$340 million.
—What the judge did decide: Mirindo did not rule on whether the agreement had been breached, and awarded no damages.
—The catch: The judge never ruled on the merits: the case was struck off because the Evolution companies were not joined.
The Motsepe graphite case is not over. Pula Group has appealed the Tanzanian ruling that removed its US$195 million damages claim against Patrice Motsepe and three companies linked to him, a decision taken on a procedural point rather than on whether any agreement was breached.
What Pula filed, and when
Pula Group lodged a notice of appeal on 24 August against the whole of the decision, according to Bloomberg on 4 September and the South African mining title Miningmx. The company’s chairman, Charles Stith, a former United States ambassador to Tanzania, confirmed the filing.
Stith also said Pula could simply refile the case rather than pursue the appeal. Both routes remain open, which is unusual and gives the claimant leverage over timing.
African Rainbow Capital said it was aware of the notice but that it was too early to comment, because the filing does not set out the grounds. African Rainbow Minerals said it respects both the court’s ruling and Pula’s right to appeal.
Why the case was struck off
Judge F.M. Mirindo struck the claim off the roll on 7 August. His reason was joinder: Pula had not brought in Evolution Energy Minerals and its related companies, which he considered necessary parties to the dispute.
He awarded no damages and made no finding on whether the confidentiality and non-compete agreement had been breached. A strike-off on that basis ends a case without answering the question it asked.
Stith has explained why Evolution was left out of the original suit. Evolution was a party to the transaction, he says, but the investment was made into that company, and only the investor could decide whether to proceed with a non-compete in place.
What the Motsepe graphite case is actually about
Pula and its Tanzanian unit sued in 2023, alleging that Patrice Motsepe, African Rainbow Minerals, African Rainbow Capital Investments and ARCH Sustainable Resources breached a non-compete clause. The alleged breach was an investment in the Australian company Evolution Energy Minerals.
Evolution’s Chilalo graphite project sits next to Pula’s own graphite ground in the Ruangwa district of Lindi region, in southern Tanzania. Adjacency is the whole complaint: two neighbouring deposits, one investor and a confidentiality agreement between the parties.
Graphite is a battery mineral, which is why a dispute over a small southern Tanzanian licence area attracts this much attention. Anode supply is one of the narrowest points in the electric-vehicle chain.
What the judge did decide
The ruling was not a clean win for the defendants. Mirindo confirmed that Tanzania has jurisdiction over the case, which settles a question that could otherwise have ended it permanently.
A South African court had already found in April 2026 that African Rainbow Capital was not a party to the 2019 non-disclosure agreement at the centre of the claim. That finding keeps him personally inside the frame if the case returns.
Neither point touches the merits. Both make it easier, rather than harder, for a refiled claim to proceed.
The South African leg, already lost
Motsepe has already won the South African side of the fight. Judge Leicester Adams cleared African Rainbow Capital in the Gauteng High Court in April, finding that the 2019 non-disclosure agreement was signed between Pula and African Rainbow Minerals rather than with African Rainbow Capital.
The court held that Pula’s contractual remedies therefore lay against African Rainbow Minerals alone. Pula obtained leave to appeal in May and abandoned it in July.
African Rainbow Capital says that makes the judgment final and binding. Stith described the withdrawal at the time as a disciplined legal and commercial decision rather than a retreat.
How the claim could grow
The US$195 million figure came from a valuation by Bowline Professional Services of what Pula stood to lose from the competitive disadvantage it alleges. The underlying agreement was a two-year confidentiality and non-compete arrangement.
Stith says the number could rise now that an Evolution investor document has valued that company at US$340 million. A damages claim benchmarked to a rising asset value tends to move with it.
That is a claimant’s estimate and not a court’s award. No tribunal has tested the valuation, and none has found a breach.
Why the distinction matters to investors
It would be easy to read August’s outcome as a clearance. It was not: a case struck off for non-joinder has been parked on procedure, and the substance is untouched.
For anyone holding African Rainbow Minerals or African Rainbow Capital paper, that distinction is the whole of the risk. A merits judgment closes a contingent liability, and a procedural ruling merely postpones it.
The same logic applies to Evolution. If the companies the judge considered necessary parties are joined next time, they become participants in a dispute they have so far watched from outside.
What to watch
The first signal is the grounds of appeal, which the notice does not yet set out. They will show whether Pula is arguing that joinder was unnecessary or that it should have been allowed to cure the defect.
The second is whether Pula refiles instead, which would be faster but would restart the clock. A refiled claim would presumably name the Evolution companies from the outset.
The third is disclosure by the listed defendants. African Rainbow Capital and African Rainbow Minerals will have to characterise the appeal in their next results, and how they do it will tell shareholders what the boards think it is worth.
Frequently Asked Questions
What has Pula Group appealed?
It filed a notice of appeal on 24 August against the whole of the Tanzanian decision that struck its US$195 million claim off the roll. Its chairman says the company could also refile the case instead.
Why was the claim struck off?
Judge F.M. Mirindo removed it on 7 August because Pula had not joined Evolution Energy Minerals and related companies, which he considered necessary parties. He made no finding on whether any agreement had been breached.
What is the dispute about?
Pula alleges that Patrice Motsepe and three linked companies breached a non-compete clause by investing in Australia’s Evolution Energy Minerals. Evolution’s Chilalo graphite project sits next to Pula’s licence area in southern Tanzania.
Did Motsepe win the South African case?
Yes. The Gauteng High Court cleared African Rainbow Capital in April, finding the 2019 non-disclosure agreement was signed with African Rainbow Minerals instead, and Pula abandoned its appeal in July.
Could the US$195 million claim increase?
Pula’s chairman says it could, because an Evolution investor document valued that company at US$340 million. The figure remains a claimant’s estimate rather than a court award.
Connected Coverage
We reported the earlier South African ruling in the same graphite dispute, and African Rainbow Minerals betting close to US$1 billion on platinum and nickel. Tanzania’s minerals politics runs alongside Kenya’s decision to end a century of soda ash mining at Lake Magadi, and the broader contest we track in Africa: The New Scramble.
This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error
Read More from The Rio Times