Billionaire Patrice Motsepe in hot water over R3 billion lawsuit

Billionaire Patrice Motsepe and companies linked to him have been accused of “court shopping”, among other claims, amidst a R3 billion mining dispute.

These claims, related to a recent lawsuit filed in South African courts, date back to 2024, when Motsepe and his associate companies were sued for $195 million (around R3 billion) in Tanzania.

In 2024, Tanzanian mining firm Pula Group sued Motsepe-linked companies, including African Rainbow Minerals (ARM), African Rainbow Capital (ARC) and ARCH Emerging Markets.

Pula alleged that Motsepe and these companies breached a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) contract when it invested in Australia’s Evolution Energy Minerals, which is located next to Pula’s graphite project in Tanzania.

The company claimed that confidential information was shared with these Motsepe-linked companies and used in breach of the NDA to acquire a stake in Evolution Energy.

Pula said this resulted in its company suffering a future loss of profit in respect of its exploration right, and, therefore, advanced a contractual claim for those alleged damages against Motsepe, ARM, ARC and ARCH.

It should be noted that ARC has disputed that the NDA was ever breached, pointing out that ARM was the only party to the agreement.

“Pula has been unable to present any evidence in its affidavits that ARM breached the NDA by disclosing Pula’s purported confidential information to ARC or any other party,” ARC told Daily Investor in response to questions.

“As a fact, ARM did not breach the NDA and ARC and ARCH at no time obtained Pula’s confidential information, and it played no role in the ARCH Fund’s decision to invest in Evolution Energy.”

This lawsuit remains active in Tanzania, but Pula has now accused the Motsepe-linked companies of “forum shopping” after they filed an ex parte application seeking declaratory relief related to this case at a South African court.

Timing questioned

Near the end of 2025, ARC applied to the court, by way of an ex parte application, to apply for declaratory orders to be served by way of an edictal citation on Pula, a foreign company.

The court granted the order on 7 August 2025, and the papers were subsequently served on Pula.

The current application before the court is now an application for declaratory orders to the effect that, amongst others, the NDA was concluded between Pula and ARM.

This would imply that ARC has no obligations arising from and cannot be in breach of the NDA entered into with Pula and, therefore, cannot be held liable for contractual damages flowing from a breach of the agreement.

“ARC disputes that the Tanzanian court has jurisdiction over the defendants. The NDA, which is central to Pula’s case, is governed by South African law, and the majority of the defendants are based in South Africa,” the company told Daily Investor. 

“None of the defendants are based in Tanzania. ARC is accordingly of the view that only the South African courts have jurisdiction and are best-placed to consider the matter.”

However, Pula alleged in a press statement released on Monday, 12 January 2026, that this move raises several questions about whether the safeguards designed to ensure a fair hearing are being fully observed.

“For more than two years, the dispute proceeded in Tanzania. Only after a series of adverse procedural developments did Motsepe-linked parties turn to South Africa, doing so on an ex parte basis, without notice to the opposing parties,” the company claimed.

“In December 2023, ARM, ARCH, and Dr Patrice Motsepe personally failed to appear at a scheduled hearing in Tanzania.” 

“No explanation was provided at the time. In July 2024, the Tanzania High Court ruled that those parties no longer had standing in the main case due to their failure to appear, effectively placing them in default.”

Pula alleged that its application for default judgment against Motsepe and his companies has since been granted and is currently awaiting a ruling. 

“Subsequent petitions by ARM, ARCH, and Motsepe to re-enter the proceedings were denied by the Tanzanian court,” it said.

‘Court shopping’ allegations and delay tactics

Pula said that, as the case moved into pre-trial proceedings, including an imminent ruling on the default judgment, the Motsepe-linked companies initiated proceedings in South Africa.

“By the court’s own ruling, those parties no longer have standing in the main case,” said Pula Group chairman Charles Stith. 

“We anticipate a favourable ruling on our default application, and it is in that context that South Africa suddenly comes into focus.”

“When declaratory relief is sought late in the day, without an enforcement nexus, after years of litigation elsewhere, scrutiny is inevitable.”

Therefore, Pula accused ARC and the other Motsepe-linked companies of ‘court shopping’, claiming they are looking for a court that would be more amenable to their arguments.

“South Africa is being approached not as the natural forum for resolving the dispute, but as a tactical shield at a moment of heightened exposure elsewhere,” Pula claimed.

“What began as a contractual dispute is now being watched as a broader test of judicial independence, transparency, and the limits of cross-border litigation strategy.”

The company further claimed that ARC’s move is a delay tactic, intended to defer a potentially adverse ruling in Tanzania.

Pula also took exception to ARC’s decision to bring the South African application through ex parte proceedings.

It claimed that this meant it was done without notice to or participation by Pula, as these types of proceedings are usually reserved for situations of genuine urgency or where notice would defeat the purpose of the application.

However, according to ARC, Pula has responded to the application and filed its answering affidavit, to which ARC has responded with a replying affidavit.

“Pula failed to file its heads of argument within the time allowed in terms of the court rules. ARC has applied to the Deputy Judge President for an expedited hearing date,” ARC told Daily Investor.

Regarding the court shopping allegation, ARC claimed that the view expressed by Pula is not true, as it has always been ARC’s position that the dispute should be heard and determined by the South African courts.

According to ARC, the best indication of the position in South African law is a judgment from a South African court. 

“The contract was concluded in South Africa, was executed in South Africa, is subject to South African law, and the only defendant who is a party to the contract (ARM) is based in South Africa,” ARC said.

“In the circumstances, it is not clear why Pula chose the Tanzania court as the forum for its claims.”

Regarding Pula’s claim that this move could be seen as a delay tactic, ARC told Daily Investor that the Tanzanian proceedings are independent from the South African proceedings.

Therefore, “the South African proceedings have in no way delayed the Tanzanian proceedings”, ARC said.

“The edictal citation application was a purely procedural step to firstly authorise institution of the main proceedings in South Africa by edict, and secondly to authorise service of the main proceedings on Pula outside the borders of South Africa.”