Story audio is generated using AI
US-based Pula Graphite has confirmed its decision to abandon leave to appeal a high court judgment that exonerated billionaire Patrice Motsepe of a R3.4bn liability, saying it is not as a “retreat” as the damages case continues in Tanzania next week.Chairperson of Pula Group Charles Stith said the company is focused on the Tanzanian high court that will rule on claims at the end of the month.However, he said the decision should not be interpreted as conceding or capitulating to the South African judgment and had no impact on Pula’s claims in Tanzania. “Pula’s decision not to pursue the South African appeal was a disciplined legal and commercial decision. It was not a retreat, and it was not a concession,” he said.Stith said the Tanzanian court mattered, as “substantive” issues would be determined. “Pula regards attempts to present the abandonment of the South African appeal as the conclusion of the dispute as selective, incomplete, and misleading. At best, it is a publicity stunt designed to create the impression that the matter is over when the court that matters has yet to rule,” he said.Pula Graphite, a subsidiary of the Pula Group, took legal action against Motsepe and his associated companies African Rainbow Minerals (ARM), ARCH Sustainable Resources, and African Rainbow Capital (ARC) in 2023 over the breach of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and non-compete clauses linked to an operation in that country.Pula alleged it lost a granite opportunity after confidential information was shared between Motsepe, ARC, ARM and ARCH in breach of an NDA, despite the agreement existing only between Pula and ARC.By not prosecuting the appeal, Pula has accepted that the high court’s judgment is final and binding upon it— Garry Ramaru, ARC spokesperson.The company said the infringement led to an investment in Pula’s rival Evolution Energy, which was involved in the development of Chilalo, a nearby granite project.According to Pula, the breach of the NDA led to a dent in future losses in profit and prompted the litigation.However, it was found that while Pula alleged it had exploration rights to the project at the time of the litigation in 2023, it had in fact attempted to renew the right, which could not be renewed, and it later had to be ceded.Pula then established Pula Carbon in August 2023, which was awarded a new exploration right that covered the same area of the relinquished right, but Pula Carbon was not part of the NDA or the litigation.ARC brought a case in the high court for clarity on the South African position regarding the claims case in Tanzania. It said, in preparation for the case, Pula admitted that it was not bound by the terms of the NDA.In April the high court ruled that ARC was not obliged to the confidentiality agreement.Although Pula initially sought leave to appeal, it later abandoned the application to focus on its damages case in Tanzania.In a statement this week, ARC said that the decision to walk away meant that Pula had accepted the court’s decision. “By not prosecuting the appeal, Pula has accepted that the high court’s judgment is final and binding upon it,” said Garry Ramaru, ARC spokesperson.He said in the Tanzanian case ARC argued that the High Court’s judgment rendered the issues to be decided in Tanzania res judicata. “The matter in Tanzania is sub judice, with judgment to be handed down at the end of July 2026.”Ramaru said the fact that the High Court decision is final and has been accepted by Pula supports the arguments made by ARC in the Tanzanian case that the matter is res judicata.Res judicata is the legal principle that prevents parties from litigating the same issue once a court has issued a final judgment. Ramaru said Pula had failed to establish a case under South African contract law — the law governing the NDA — against Motsepe, ARM, ARC or ARCH.Business Times
