Dar es Salaam. Pula Group has reacted after the Johannesburg High Court ruled in favour of African Rainbow Capital (ARC), a company linked to South African billionaire Patrice Motsepe, in a legal dispute connected to a $195 million mining case involving Tanzanian interests.
The court ruled that ARC had been wrongly included in the case and cannot be held liable under a 2019 confidentiality agreement it did not sign.
The agreement, the court said, was between Pula Group and African Rainbow Minerals (ARM) only.
According to the judgment, ARC had no contractual obligations under the agreement and could not be accused of breaching it. The court also found that Pula Group had not established a valid contractual claim against ARC.
The dispute is part of a wider cross-border legal battle in which Pula Group and its Tanzanian partner are pursuing damages in Tanzania, accusing companies linked to Motsepe of using confidential mining data to gain advantage in graphite-related projects.
The South African court ruled that if any breach of contract occurred, the claim would lie against ARM, not ARC, which was not a party to the agreement.
Reacting to the ruling, Pula Group Executive Chairman Ambassador Charles Stith said in a statement on Thursday, April 16, 2026 that it was unfortunate that the decision was delivered shortly before the case is due to be heard in Tanzania.
He said ARM had signed a non-compete and confidentiality agreement linked to a graphite project being developed in Tanzania through its local subsidiary, Pula Graphite Partners.
Ambassador Stith alleged that ARM accessed sensitive data relating to mineral resources, market research and political conditions in Tanzania, which he said was later linked to investment activity involving ARC and other related entities.
He maintained that ARC’s involvement in a competing graphite project raised serious concerns about the alleged breach of the non-compete arrangement.
He also criticised the broader structure of mining investment in Africa, arguing that Tanzanian and African firms remain underrepresented in exploration activities compared to foreign companies.
He said Australian firms account for about 70 percent of mineral exploration in Tanzania, while Tanzanian firms account for about 4 percent. Across the continent, he added, Australian, Canadian and British companies dominate exploration activity.
“This disparity is unsustainable if African countries are going to realize the full potential of the resources they possess…. The SA court’s ruling is an effort to continue the status quo, with one small twist,” he said.
He also referred to Tanzania’s historical support for South Africa’s liberation struggle, questioning the current state of economic relations in the sector.
In its ruling, the Johannesburg High Court also confirmed its jurisdiction over the matter, saying the agreement was signed in Gauteng and governed by South African law.
The court rejected arguments that the case should be stayed in favour of proceedings in Tanzania, and dismissed claims that it interfered with Tanzania’s sovereignty.
It further ordered Pula Group to pay legal costs, including senior counsel fees.
The ruling narrows the case significantly by removing ARC from the contractual dispute, leaving Pula Group to pursue its claims against African Rainbow Minerals in ongoing proceedings in Tanzania.
