US-based Pula Group has filed leave to appeal a high court judgment absolving Patrice Motsepe’s investment firm, African Rainbow Capital (ARC), from liability in a R3.4bn damages claim. Pula Group, headed by former US ambassador to Tanzania Charles Stith’s daughter Mary, suffered a blow last month in the legal showdown against Motsepe, ARC, African Rainbow Minerals (ARM) and Arch Sustainable Resources. Pula Group accused Motsepe and the companies of breaching a confidential 2019 agreement in a mining investment proposal in Tanzania over Pula Graphite. Pula Group shared information with ARM to get investment, which did not materialise. An ARC-linked company, Arch Sustainable Resources Fund, later invested in Australia’s Evolution Energy Minerals in 2021, which was involved in a graphite mine project, Chilalo, in the same area as Pula Graphite.Judge Leicester Adams of the high court in Joburg ruled no obligations arose from the confidentiality agreement on ARC, which cannot be in breach of the confidentiality agreement in the damages claim. The Pula Group and Pula Graphite Partners cannot hold ARC liable “for contractual damages flowing from a breach of the confidentiality agreement,” the judgment reads.The damages claim is pending in the Tanzanian high court. To the extent the Pula Group is able to prove a breach of the agreement and damages arising from that breach, its contractual remedies should be against ARM only, judge Adams found. The court order absolves Motsepe and other companies from liability in the litigation, finding the Pula Group case should be against ARM only. Pula Group has filed for leave to appeal against the judgment.ARC legal representative advocate Stuart Scott on Thursday filed court papers opposing the appeal. He argues the confidential contract agreed that South African law would govern the contractual relationship or claims for alleged breaches arising from that agreement. “Pula — in these proceedings — accepts that the agreement is no basis for Pula to claim damages against ARC. But there is nothing on the papers before this court, which demonstrates that Pula has abandoned, or undertaken on affidavit to abandon, its contentions or its claim against ARC in the pending proceedings in Tanzania,” said Scott.Pula pins the damages claim against ARC as a purported “affiliate” of ARM. Scott contends the appeal will fail as there is no prospect of an appellate court finding differently than the high court.“It is indisputable that ARC is not a party to the agreement and is not bound. “It is astonishing, with respect, that even Pula purports to accept this before this court while Pula is — simultaneously — pressing ahead with its claim for damages, in Tanzania, against ARC on the basis that ARC is jointly and severally liable under the agreement,” he argues.