Patrice Motsepe’s investment firm, African Rainbow Capital (ARC), has asked a South African court to issue an order forcing a US company, Pula Group, to file court papers in a $195m lawsuit. ARC is pushing for the matter, initially litigated in Tanzania, to be decided by the high court in Johannesburg. The court order, if granted, would compel Pula to oppose the application while the litigants fight over which of South Africa and Tanzania has jurisdiction in the matter.
Pula, headed by Mary Stith, daughter of former US ambassador to Tanzania Charles Stith, took ARC, African Rainbow Minerals (ARM) and Arch Sustainable Resources to court in 2023, accusing the companies of breaching a 2019 confidentiality agreement. The non-disclosure agreement was between ARM and Pula for a mining investment proposal in Tanzania. Pula alleges ARC, ARM and ARCH shared the company’s confidential information when ARCH invested with a competitor, Australia’s Evolution Energy Minerals, in 2021.
Evolution Energy Minerals is involved in a graphite mine project in Chilalo, Tanzania — the same area as Pula Graphite’s proposed project. The $195m (more than R3.2bn) damages litigation is under way inTanzania, but ARC wants the high court in Joburg to declare the company cannot be held liable for thealleged breachof contract because it did not sign the agreement. ARC attorney Odwa Mashwabane this month added pressure in the litigation and filed the application for the high court to issue an order directing Pula Group and Pula Graphite to deliver their heads of argument and other court papers in the South African litigation.
Read Full Article on Business Day
[paywall]
Mashwabane accused Pula Group and Pula Graphite of delaying the case, stating that they should have filed the court papers by no later than December 31 2025 for the matter to be heard expediently. “The applicant has been burdened by the first and second respondents (Pula Group and Pula Graphite) repeatedly changing attorneys, thereby delaying the process,” Mashwabane argues. “The aforesaid conduct is prejudicial to the applicant, in that they are thereby delaying the determination and finalisation of the main application. “The applicant intends to enrol the main application for hearing as soon as possible.”
[/paywall]
