Grain SA is deeply disappointed by the court’s decision not to grant the urgent interim relief to interdict the implementation of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange’s (JSE) decision to discontinue the soybean Multiple Reference Point (MRP) model and return to a single reference point model (“the SRP decision”). This interim interdict was sought pending the finalisation of the application to review and set aside the SRP decision.
Despite Grain SA’s arguments based on authorities and case law, the court found that the relief sought is not urgent and the matter was struck from the roll.
The interim application was not adjudicated on its merits, and Grain SA will be approaching the office of the Deputy Judge President of the Johannesburg High Court for an expedited hearing of the interim application on its merits.
In the interim, Grain SA’s separate application for review of the SRP decision has been issued and served on the JSE on 27 October 2026. This process is ongoing.
Today’s outcome does not determine the merits of the review application.
Implementation while legal protection was being sought
Grain SA is particularly concerned that, since the interim application was launched on 13 August 2026, the JSE proceeded to list future soybean contracts until March 2028, despite knowing that the interim application is pending.
According to Grain SA, these listings occurred unusually early and contrary to the custom usually adopted by the JSE when listing futures contracts ordinarily a year in advance.
Grain SA regards this conduct by the JSE as an obstructive tactic to defeat the relief sought by Grain SA in the interim application.
The JSE furthermore published indicative location differentials in a clear attempt to advance the implementation of the very decision producers is seeking to challenge. This was acknowledged by the JSE in its answering affidavit filed in the interim application “…location differentials are typically only published much closer to the start of the marketing season.”
That implementation was then relied upon by the JSE in opposing the urgent relief and argued that “the horse has already bolted”.
Grain SA maintains that retaining the existing MRP model while the legal proceedings are ongoing would have preserved an established trading framework. Demonstrated harm to market participants at large was not the basis advanced for abandoning the MRP model. Grain SA therefore questions the necessity of advancing implementation before its application for interim protection could be considered.
“The existing system could have remained in place while the court considered our application. Instead, the JSE pressed ahead and then relied on its own actions to argue that it was too late to intervene. Producers are entitled to question whether their concerns were ever going to receive meaningful consideration,” said Grain SA Chairperson Richard Krige.
“Given this conduct, producers have lost faith in the platform’s willingness to consider their interests fairly. An independent exchange depends on the trust of its participants. These actions have severely damaged that trust and raise serious questions about the JSE’s impartiality in this process”,Krige said.
Producers remain exposed while the review proceeds
The refusal of interim relief leaves producers exposed to the potential financial consequences of the disputed methodology while the finalisation of the review application is still pending. Legal proceedings can extend over several years, during which farmers must continue making planting, financing and marketing decisions under the model being challenged.
“Producers are left carrying the financial risk while the legal process runs its course. A magnitude of R800 million per season. Even if the review ultimately succeeds in their favour, it would not automatically compensate them for losses already incurred. A successful review does not, by itself, provide a mechanism for recovering those losses. This is precisely the exposure our interdict application sought to prevent,” said Grain SA CEO Tobias Doyer.
Pricing must reflect the physical market
The dispute concerns soybean location differentials and the deductions applied to the futures price for delivery at different registered locations. Buyers can also use these published deductions as benchmarks when negotiating prices with farmers in the physical market.
Grain SA maintains that the methodology must reflect regional production, processing demand and actual soybean movements. It remains concerned that a single reference point can create deductions based on transport assumptions that do not reflect the crop’s commercial destination.
The organisation also maintains that accessible zero-differential delivery points are important to give producers practical delivery alternatives, including the ability to arrange their own transport, and opportunities to challenge unfavourable physical-market prices.
“The listing of contracts and publication of indicative differentials are consequential market actions. They influence expectations, negotiations and commercial decisions well before physical delivery takes place. Their impact cannot simply be deferred until the review is concluded,” Doyer said.
Consumers also have a stake
Grain SA’s concerns extend beyond producer income. In a market characterised by concentrated buying power and unequal access to information, published deductions can strengthen powerful buyers’ ability to manipulate the prices paid to farmers.
Where market power is abused, the benefits generated from such abuse can be retained within the value chain by selective market participants rather than extending such benefits to consumers. Producers then receive less for their crop while households do not benefit from the lower agricultural purchase prices.
“A lower price paid to a farmer does not automatically mean cheaper food. Effective competition should ensure that efficiencies benefit both producers and consumers, rather than allowing gains to be retained by powerful participants at their expense,” Doyer said.
Any further legal steps arising from today’s ruling will be communicated once considered.
“Today’s outcome is a setback in securing interim protection, but our commitment to the review remains firm. Producers deserve transparent, evidence-based decisions and a market that reflects physical-market realities. The JSE will need to do substantial work to rebuild the confidence its actions have damaged,” Krige said.
Grain SA thanks its members for their continued support and will keep them informed as the matter progresses.
ENDS
Issued by:
Grain SA Communications
Media enquiries:
Richard Krige, Grain SA Chairperson, 082 316 3230 | boontjieskraal@com2000.co.za
Jeremia Mathebula, Grain SA Vice Chairperson, 082 353 2726 |jeremiamathebula5@gmail.com
Technical enquiries:
Dirk Strydom, NAMPO Managing Director, 082 852 4810 | dirks@grainsa.co.za
