In a media release issued on the same day, Grain SA said it would approach the office of the Deputy Judge President of the Johannesburg High Court for an expedited hearing of the interim application.
“Today’s outcome is a setback in securing interim protection, but our commitment to the [soya bean pricing] review remains firm.
“Producers deserve transparent, evidence-based decisions and a market that reflects physical-market realities,” Grain SA Chairperson Richard Krige said.
August: Grain SA seeks interim protection
The legal proceedings followed the JSE’s decision to abandon the soya bean multiple reference point model and return to a single reference point (SRP).
Grain SA launched its interim interdict application on 13 August, seeking to prevent implementation of the SRP pending the outcome of a separate application to review and set aside the decision.
The dispute concerns location differentials, which are deductions applied to the futures price for delivery at a particular location. Buyers can also use these published deductions as benchmarks when negotiating prices with farmers.
Dr Dirk Strydom, managing director of Nampo, told Farmer’s Weekly that the pricing framework should reflect where soya beans are produced, where they are processed, and how the commodity moves between farms and buyers.
Grain SA maintains that an SRP can create deductions based on transport assumptions that do not reflect the crop’s actual commercial destination.
Contracts listed while application pending
Grain SA said that after its interim application was launched, the JSE listed soya bean futures contracts extending to March 2028.
The organisation maintained that these listings occurred unusually early compared with the exchange’s customary practice of listing contracts approximately a year ahead. It also questioned the publication of indicative location differentials while the application was pending.
“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,” Krige said.
Grain SA CEO Tobias Doyer added that these steps had commercial consequences before physical delivery occurred.
“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,” he said.
October: separate review application served
Grain SA said its separate review application had been issued and served on the JSE on 27 October. This application seeks to review and set aside the decision to return to an SRP, while the interim application seeks to prevent implementation of the decision pending the outcome of the review.
November: Grain SA warns of potential financial exposure
Following the court’s finding on urgency, Doyer said farmers remained exposed to potential financial consequences while making planting, financing, and marketing decisions under the disputed methodology.
He put the potential financial exposure at R800 million per season across industry.
“Even if the review ultimately succeeds in [producers’] favour, it will 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,” Doyer said.
Krige said the developments had damaged producers’ confidence in the JSE.
“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,” he explained.
These allegations represent Grain SA’s position and were not determined by the court’s ruling on urgency.
Doyer said fair pricing also matters to consumers.
“A lower price paid to a farmer doesn’t 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 the expense of producers and consumers,” he said.
Soya bean production expected to exceed three million tons
The dispute comes as South Africa’s soya bean production continues to increase.
According to the Crop Estimates Committee’s (CEC) ninth production forecast for summer crops, South Africa is expected to produce more than 3,1 million tons of soya bean in the 2025/26 season, up 7,51% from 2,8 million tons in 2024/25.
Meanwhile, the CEC’s intentions-to-plant report, released at the same time, shows that soya bean planting intentions for 2026/27 are around 1,2 million hectares, a marginal decline of 0,6% from the 1,21 million hectares planted in 2025/26.
Grain SA said it would keep members informed of developments and communicate further legal steps once these had been considered.
