South Africa’s highest court has refused to hear an appeal by Tongaat Hulett’s business-rescue practitioners, leaving the 134-year-old sugar producer facing a claim of approximately R517 million, or $32 million.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and ordered the rescue practitioners to pay legal costs.
Its decision leaves intact an earlier Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that Tongaat could not suspend payments owed under South Africa’s statutory sugar-industry system after entering business rescue.
The South African Sugar Association is now entitled to pursue the outstanding amount, although the precise payment process will depend on the implementation of Tongaat’s rescue plan and arrangements surrounding money placed or required to be placed in escrow.
The judgment does not liquidate Tongaat Hulett.
A provisional-liquidation application brought earlier in 2026 was withdrawn in June after the Industrial Development Corporation, Tongaat’s rescue practitioners and the Vision consortium reached a new funding agreement.
The company nevertheless remains in business rescue and faces another legal challenge from unsuccessful bidder Robert Gumede’s Terris Sugar, formerly known as RGS Group.
**DON'T MISS THIS:****134-year-old South African sugar firm nears collapse again**
**Why Tongaat could not suspend the payments**
Tongaat entered business rescue in October 2022 after years of financial distress following an accounting scandal that overstated the company’s assets and profits.
Its rescue practitioners subsequently suspended payments due to the South African Sugar Association between October 2022 and April 2023.
The payments support the administration of South Africa’s regulated sugar industry and include obligations used to redistribute proceeds and costs between growers, millers and refiners.
Tongaat argued that these arrangements operated like contracts and could therefore be suspended under provisions of the Companies Act governing business rescue.
The Sugar Association disagreed. It maintained that the obligations came from the Sugar Act and the Sugar Industry Agreement and were therefore statutory requirements rather than ordinary commercial contracts.
The Supreme Court of Appeal sided with the association in December 2025.
It found that the Sugar Industry Agreement became subordinate legislation after being promulgated by the government. Tongaat’s obligations consequently arose from law, even though the system contained features resembling a commercial agreement.
The court held that business-rescue practitioners could suspend contractual obligations but could not use that power to set aside statutory duties. Tongaat then asked the Constitutional Court to intervene.
In an order dated 24 August 2026, the court accepted procedural filings from the rescue practitioners but refused leave to appeal because the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
**DON'T MISS THIS:****South Africa races to save 134-year-old sugar giant with 2 million-ton milling capacity from shutdown**
The Constitutional Court did not conduct another full trial or calculate a new liability. Its refusal simply allowed the Supreme Court of Appeal’s interpretation to stand.
**A payment tied to Tongaat’s rescue plan**
The Sugar Association has placed the outstanding amount at approximately R517 million.
Tongaat’s approved rescue plan anticipated that disputed sugar-industry payments would be placed in escrow and released once the courts determined who was entitled to the money.
The plan stated that the funds would be paid into an escrow account within 20 business days after the closing of the rescue transactions.
The top-court decision has now resolved the central legal question in the Sugar Association’s favour.
However, public documents do not establish how much money is currently held in escrow, what portion is immediately available or whether the full R517 million must be paid from Tongaat’s operating cash.
Those details matter because the company is still trying to stabilise operations and preserve funding for growers, employees and suppliers.
It would therefore be premature to state that Tongaat must immediately produce the entire amount from its existing working capital.
**Another court fight remains**
Tongaat’s immediate position improved in June when the liquidation application against it was withdrawn.
That followed a binding agreement involving the state-owned Industrial Development Corporation, the Vision consortium and the rescue practitioners.
Under the arrangement, the IDC agreed to extend post-commencement financing until the end of September 2026 and convert part of its financial support into equity in Tongaat’s operating businesses.
Vision agreed to provide funding for creditor claims, including Tongaat’s obligations to the Sugar Association.
Vision had previously acquired approximately R11.7 billion of lender debt connected to Tongaat.
The agreement allowed the rescue process to continue, but it did not end every dispute over control of the business.
Terris Sugar is challenging parts of the Vision rescue plan and the process through which it was selected.
In July, the High Court dismissed portions of a newer Terris application because substantially similar issues were already before another court. Terris applied for permission to appeal that decision on 20 August.
Its original challenge to the rescue plan also remains unresolved.
No court has overturned the Vision plan, and Terris has not obtained control of Tongaat.
The company consequently faces two distinct legal pressures: the now-settled dispute over statutory sugar payments and a continuing fight over the rescue plan itself.
**A company with regional consequences**
Tongaat Hulett was founded in 1892 and grew into one of southern Africa’s best-known sugar businesses.
Its South African mills can process approximately two million tonnes of sugar cane annually. The wider group has historically operated across South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Eswatini.
Tongaat directly employs approximately 2,600 people, while industry participants estimate that about 250,000 jobs across the broader sugar-cane value chain depend on growers, millers, transporters and suppliers.
The company’s survival consequently affects more than its shareholders and lenders.
Its collapse could disrupt payments to farmers, reduce milling capacity and weaken rural economies that depend heavily on sugar production.
The Constitutional Court’s decision does not end Tongaat’s rescue. It does, however, remove the company’s final avenue of appeal on a liability worth approximately $32 million.
The next question is no longer whether the statutory payments can be suspended. It is how the Sugar Association will be paid without undermining a rescue process already dependent on new funding and still being challenged in court.
Follow the story