Pula Accuses ARM Of Misleading Investors Over Court Rulling In $195 million Tanzania Suit
THE Pula Group challenged a recently released statement by South African mining company African Rainbow Minerals (ARM) as a misleading interpretation about a Tanzanian High Court ruling in a US$195 million damages dispute.
Contrary to arm’s suggestion that the decision resolved the substance of its allegations, the October rulling by the High Court didn’t address the main case at all.
The dispute centres on an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement linked to proposed investments in graphite projects in Tanzania. Pula says the court’s decision to strike out its application for a default judgment against ARM, billionaire businessman Patrice Motsepe and ARCH Sustainable Resources was based on a procedural issue involving parties who had not been joined to the proceedings.
The ruling, delivered on October 9, 2026, did not determine whether the defendants had breached the agreement or whether Pula was entitled to damages, according to Pula’s account of the judgment.
Pula alleges that ARM’s October 14 public statement went beyond the court’s findings by presenting the outcome as a victory and describing the allegations as “unfounded and fabricated”. The written judgment was published on the High Court of Tanzania’s official website on October 20, the company says.
The central issue, Pula argues, is that the court did not rule on the merits of the US$195 million claim.
According to Pula, the court identified the need to join additional parties, including Evolution Energy Minerals and Ngwena Tanzania, before the dispute could be properly adjudicated.
The judgment states: “As for the way forward, the trial Judge in the adjudicated judgment ordered the striking out of the suit so as to enable the Plaintiff to come back after joining the necessary parties.”
Judge A.H. Gonzi also indicated that Pula could institute fresh proceedings against the defendants and other relevant parties, should it choose to do so.
Pula Group chairman Ambassador Charles Stith said ARM had overstated the significance of the ruling.
“ARM was quick to declare victory in a US$195 million dispute, yet the judgment tells a fundamentally different story,” Stith said.
“The court did not find our claim to be unfounded or fabricated. It did not consider the merits of our allegations, and it did not absolve ARM or any of the other defendants of wrongdoing.
“What it did was identify a procedural issue concerning the parties to the litigation and expressly leave the door open for fresh proceedings.”
Stith also questioned ARM’s decision to issue its public statement before the written judgment became publicly available.
He said the company’s announcement risked creating the impression that the underlying dispute had been conclusively resolved in ARM’s favour, an interpretation that Pula maintains is not supported by the judgment.
Dispute Linked To Tanzania Graphite Projects
The legal dispute stems from a confidentiality agreement signed by Pula Group and ARM in October 2019 in connection with a proposed investment in Pula’s Ruangwa graphite project in Tanzania and ARM’s investment in a competing project in the same region.
Pula alleges that the agreement was subsequently breached in circumstances involving investments in the Chilalo graphite project by entities associated with ARM and Motsepe.
The allegations form the basis of Pula’s US$195 million damages claim. They have not been established by a judicial determination in the ruling dated October 9.
Pula says the court’s decision underscores the importance of joining all relevant parties before the underlying allegations can be considered.
Pula Calls For Accurate Disclosure To Investors
Stith said ARM, as a publicly listed South African company, had a responsibility to ensure that its communications about material litigation accurately reflected court decisions.
“There is a fundamental difference between having a case struck out because of a procedural defect and a court determining that the allegations are false,” he said.
“ARM’s announcement blurred that distinction and presented an outcome that the judgment simply does not establish.”
He challenged ARM to identify the specific passage in the judgment supporting its characterisation of Pula’s allegations as unfounded and fabricated.
Pula maintains that shareholders and other investors are entitled to an accurate account of the proceedings and says it remains committed to pursuing its claims through the appropriate legal channels.
The dispute remains unresolved on its substantive merits, based on the ruling as described by Pula. Any fresh proceedings would be subject to the applicable legal process.