Motsepe's Companies Beat a $195 Million Graphite Claim in Tanzania. The Court Never Ruled on the Actual Allegations.

DAR ES SALAAM — Tanzania's High Court struck out a $195 million damages claim against companies linked to South African billionaire Patrice Motsepe on 12 August 2026, handing his side a second legal win this year in a dispute over a Tanzanian graphite project. The ruling settled a technicality. It did not touch the question the entire case is actually about. What the Court Actually Decided The High Court found that Pula Group, the US firm bringing the claim, had failed to join two companies central to its own case as respondents: Evolution Energy Minerals, the Australian-listed company at the centre of the alleged wrongdoing, and its Tanzanian subsidiary Ngwena Tanzania, which operates the Chilalo graphite project in the Ruangwa district of Lindi Region. Both must be added before the case can proceed. Pula's claim was removed from the court's roll rather than dismissed outright, leaving it free to refile with the correct parties named. What the ruling did not do is decide whether Pula's central allegation is true: that confidential technical and commercial data it shared with African Rainbow Minerals in 2019, while ARM considered investing in Pula's own graphite project, was later used to help a Motsepe-linked fund buy into Evolution, a direct competitor operating nearby. That question is exactly where it was when Pula first filed suit. How the Dispute Started The case traces back to a confidentiality and non-compete agreement signed in July 2019 between Pula Group and African Rainbow Minerals, the JSE-listed mining company Motsepe chairs. Pula handed over proprietary technical information about its Tanzanian graphite project while courting ARM's investment. The deal never materialised. Two years later, ARCH Sustainable Resources Fund, a vehicle linked to African Rainbow Capital and managed by UK investment adviser ARCH Emerging Markets Partners, took a cornerstone stake in the ASX listing of Evolution Energy Minerals, a company spun out of Marvel Gold that raised AU$22 million on listing and holds the Chilalo graphite project, in the same part of southeastern Tanzania as Pula's own site. ARCH now owns roughly 25% of Evolution. Pula alleges the purchase of 40 million Evolution shares was the breach: that its confidential data reached ARC and its affiliated fund, giving them the edge to buy into a direct competitor, leaving Pula, in its own account, at a severe disadvantage. Pula sued in Tanzania's High Court in October 2023, naming African Rainbow Minerals, African Rainbow Capital, Motsepe personally, and ARCH Sustainable Resources GPCo, a Guernsey-registered general partner of the fund, as defendants. Motsepe rejected the allegations in characteristically blunt terms, calling them "absolute rubbish" and "baseless and nonsensical." Pula Group is chaired by Charles R. Stith, a former US ambassador to Tanzania, and led by his daughter, Mary Stith. Two Courts, Two Rulings, Neither on the Merits The litigation has run on two tracks simultaneously, and both procedural wins for Motsepe's side share the same shape: correct on process, silent on substance. Because the 2019 agreement is governed by South African law, African Rainbow Capital asked the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg for a declaration on how far its obligations actually extended. On 15 April 2026, Judge Leicester Adams ruled that ARC was never a party to the agreement, only ARM had signed it, and that any contractual remedies Pula might have lay against ARM alone, not ARC. The court went further, finding Pula had made out no cause of action for breach of contract against ARC in the Tanzanian proceedings, and no claim for damages over a prospecting licence it had separately surrendered. Pula sought leave to appeal that ruling in May 2026, then abandoned the application, making the Gauteng judgment final and binding. ARC subsequently argued in the Tanzanian proceedings that the Gauteng ruling made the underlying issues res judicata, already settled, and should end the Tanzania case outright. That argument didn't get its answer either: instead, the Tanzanian court's August ruling resolved the case on the separate, narrower ground that Evolution and Ngwena Tanzania, not previously named, needed to be joined before the claim could proceed at all. Two courts, two rulings, and the actual question, whether confidential data moved from one graphite project to its rival, remains formally undecided in either jurisdiction. Why This Matters Beyond One Lawsuit Tanzania has been positioning itself as a significant future supplier of graphite, a critical mineral used in lithium-ion battery anodes, as global manufacturers work to diversify supply chains away from existing sources. That context is what elevates this from a private commercial dispute into something with broader relevance for how mining investment negotiations get structured across the continent. The dispute turns on a question that will recur as more international capital chases African critical mineral deposits: what happens to the geological and commercial information a company shares with a prospective investor when that investment falls through, and the investor later shows up backing a competing project nearby? Confidentiality and non-compete agreements exist precisely to answer that question, but as this case shows, enforcing them across jurisdictions, when the agreement is signed under South African law, the mine sits in Tanzania, the competing company is listed in Australia, and the disputed fund is structured through Guernsey, can consume years without a court ever reaching the underlying facts. What Happens Next Pula's most direct path forward is to refile in Tanzania with Evolution Energy Minerals and Ngwena Tanzania properly joined as respondents, which would put the case back before the Tanzanian courts in a form that could actually proceed to a decision on the merits. Whether it does so, and how ARC's res judicata argument fares once evidence actually gets tested, are the questions that will determine whether this dispute ever produces a substantive ruling or simply continues generating procedural outcomes on both sides of the Indian Ocean. For Motsepe, whose fortune Forbes put at $4.3 billion in its 2026 Black Billionaires ranking, and whose African Rainbow Minerals reported a near-doubling of profit in the first half of fiscal 2026 on rising platinum, palladium and rhodium prices, the financial stakes of a $195 million claim are proportionally smaller than the reputational ones. For Tanzania's graphite sector, still building the institutional and legal infrastructure to manage competing international investors chasing the same deposits, the more important outcome than who wins this case may be whether it ever actually gets decided. FAQ Did Tanzania's court rule that Motsepe's companies did nothing wrong? No. The court struck the claim from its roll because Pula failed to name Evolution Energy Minerals and its Tanzanian subsidiary Ngwena Tanzania as respondents, a procedural requirement. It did not rule on whether confidential information was actually misused. Is the case over? Not necessarily. Pula can refile in Tanzania with Evolution Energy Minerals and Ngwena Tanzania properly joined as respondents, which would allow the underlying allegations to be tested on their merits. What is Pula Group alleging? That confidential technical and commercial data it shared with African Rainbow Minerals under a 2019 non-compete agreement, while ARM considered investing in Pula's graphite project, was later used to help an ARC-linked fund acquire a roughly 25% stake in Evolution Energy Minerals, which operates the competing Chilalo graphite project nearby. What happened in the South African court case? In April 2026, Johannesburg's Gauteng High Court ruled that African Rainbow Capital was never a party to the 2019 agreement, only African Rainbow Minerals signed it, and found Pula had no valid breach-of-contract claim against ARC. Pula sought to appeal, then abandoned that appeal, making the ruling final. Are ARC and ARCH the same company? No. African Rainbow Capital (ARC) is Motsepe's broader investment holding company. ARCH Sustainable Resources Fund is a separate vehicle, linked to ARC and managed by UK-based ARCH Emerging Markets Partners, that made the actual investment in Evolution Energy Minerals that Pula alleges was the breach. Why does this case matter beyond the two companies involved? It highlights a recurring risk in African mining investment as global demand for critical minerals like graphite rises: what protection exists for confidential geological and commercial data shared during failed investment talks, if the prospective investor later backs a competing project in the same district.