Grain SA has warned that soybean producers remain financially exposed after a court declined to grant urgent interim relief against the Johannesburg Stock Exchange’s decision to discontinue the soybean Multiple Reference Point (MRP) model and return to a single reference point model, known as the SRP decision. The interim interdict had been sought pending the finalisation of an application to review and set aside that decision.
The organisation says the operational reality on the ground has moved ahead of the legal process. Since the interim application was launched on 13 August 2026, the JSE has listed future soybean contracts up to March 2028, even though it knew the application was pending. According to Grain SA, these listings came unusually early, contrary to the exchange’s customary practice of listing futures contracts roughly a year in advance. The organisation views this as an obstructive tactic aimed at defeating the relief sought in the interim application.
Further implementation steps followed. The JSE published indicative location differentials, which Grain SA describes as a clear attempt to advance the very decision producers are challenging. The exchange acknowledged the timing issue in its answering affidavit filed in the interim application, stating that location differentials are typically only published much closer to the start of the marketing season. That implementation was then cited by the JSE in opposing the urgent relief, with the argument that “the horse has already bolted”.
Grain SA maintains that keeping the existing MRP model in place while proceedings continued would have preserved an established trading framework, and that demonstrated harm to market participants at large was not the basis advanced for abandoning the model. Chairperson Richard Krige said: “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 added that the conduct has damaged confidence in the platform. “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,” he said.
On the legal track itself, the court found the relief sought was not urgent and struck the matter from the roll, despite Grain SA’s arguments based on authorities and case law. The interim application was not adjudicated on its merits. Grain SA will approach the office of the Deputy Judge President of the Johannesburg High Court for an expedited hearing of the interim application on its merits. Meanwhile, its separate review application of the SRP decision was issued and served on the JSE on 27 October 2026, and that process is ongoing. The organisation stresses that the ruling does not determine the merits of the review.
The refusal of interim protection leaves producers carrying the potential financial consequences of the disputed methodology while the review is finalised. Legal proceedings can extend over several years, during which farmers must continue making planting, financing and marketing decisions under the model being challenged. CEO Tobias Doyer quantified the stakes: “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.”
The dispute centres on soybean location differentials and the deductions applied to the futures price for delivery at different registered locations. Buyers can use these published deductions as benchmarks when negotiating prices with farmers in the physical market. Grain SA argues the methodology must reflect regional production, processing demand and actual soybean movements, and remains concerned that a single reference point can produce deductions based on transport assumptions that do not match the crop’s commercial destination. Accessible zero-differential delivery points, it says, give producers practical delivery alternatives, including arranging their own transport and challenging 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.
The organisation’s concerns extend to consumers. In a market marked by concentrated buying power and unequal access to information, published deductions can strengthen powerful buyers’ ability to manipulate prices paid to farmers. Where market power is abused, Grain SA argues, benefits can be retained within the value chain by selective participants rather than passed on, so producers receive less while households do not gain cheaper food. “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 the 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 thanked its members for their continued support and will keep them informed as the matter progresses. Whether the Johannesburg High Court grants an expedited hearing on the merits may now determine how long producers carry the R800 million per season exposure.