A $195 million mining dispute involving Tanzanian graphite developer Pula Graphite Partners Tanzania Limited and companies linked to South African billionaire Patrice Motsepe has escalated, with parallel legal proceedings unfolding in both countries. The developments underscore the growing complexity of cross-border litigation in Africa’s minerals sector. Pula Graphite Partners, chaired by former US ambassador to Tanzania Charles Stith, holds exploration interests in the south of the country, a region that has emerged as one of its most prospective graphite corridors as global demand for battery minerals accelerates In 2023, Pula initiated proceedings in the Tanzanian High Court against African Rainbow Minerals (ARM), African Rainbow Capital (ARC), ARCH Sustainable Resources and Motsepe.
The suit alleges breaches of non-disclosure and non-compete agreements entered into during discussions around a proposed graphite development in Tanzania. Pula contends that the agreements were designed to protect commercially sensitive information shared as part of a potential investment and partnership process. The matter is scheduled for mention on February 23, a procedural step that could allow the case to advance toward trial after more than two years of preliminary litigation.
The proceedings have been characterised by interlocutory applications, procedural disputes and appeals that have delayed substantive arguments on the merits of the case. Pula alleges that confidential information disclosed under the agreements was improperly used in connection with an investment in Evolution Energy Minerals, an Australia-listed company developing a neighbouring graphite project that Pula considers a competitor. Evolution’s project lies within the same geological belt in southern Tanzania, an area known for high-grade flake graphite.
Read Full Article on Mail & Guardian
[paywall]
According to court filings, the information allegedly shared included non-public geological and technical material. Pula maintains that such information would be valuable to any party assessing competing graphite assets in the same geological corridor. The company further claims it disclosed forward-looking project development strategies, including anticipated timelines and capital expenditure assumptions.
Pula says the insights could enable a third party to accelerate or structure a competing project in a way that weakened Pula’s commercial position. Pula also alleges that it shared non-public regulatory and licensing context, including its understanding of licence renewal prospects, engagement with Tanzanian authorities and perceived regulatory risks.
[/paywall]
