It began with a discussion. There was no formal paperwork or signed contract, just conversations between two people who seemed to leave with quite different interpretations of what had been agreed upon. Spur Corporation has spent over R129 million in provisions and counting as a result of that gap, which, despite its apparent smallness at the time, has now developed into one of the most costly legal disputes in South Africa’s restaurant industry.
The lawsuit against Spur GPS Food Group began in 2019 when GPS Food Group served a summons alleging that it and Spur entities had an oral agreement to jointly purchase, develop, and operate a rib-processing facility in Cape Town. Around 2017, GPS set up that facility with the goal of providing ribs exclusively to Spur Group franchisees, such as John Dory’s, RocoMamas, and Spur. GPS claimed that Spur had renounced a legally binding agreement when that arrangement allegedly collapsed. Spur’s stance was simple: there was no joint venture agreement because no formal contract was ever signed.
Before both parties decided to use arbitration to settle the disagreement, it remained in legal limbo for years. Official proceedings began in October 2023 and continued until December 2024. By no means was it resolved quickly. Looking back, it seems like both sides honestly thot they had the stronger case, which is how these cases frequently drag on.
The arbitrator rendered a partial decision in August 2025. GPS prevailed on the merits of the primary damages claim, which was categorized as Claim A. Claim B, an additional R95.8 million delictual claim that also named Pierre van Tonder, the CEO of Spur at the time, was completely rejected. In May 2021, Van Tonder, who had retired in December 2020, committed suicide at his Sea Point residence. His passing gives what could otherwise appear to be a purely corporate dispute a weighty, human element.
The damages amount was then revealed earlier this month. GPS was given a capital award of R74.6 million by the arbitrator, along with interest calculated at a rate of 10% annually starting on the date of the initial summons in 2019. Just that interest raises the total well above R120 million. Spur’s books now show a provision of R129.5 million, which suggests that about R6.5 million of that amount has been spent on legal fees thus far.
Spur isn’t quietly accepting the result. Senior counsel has advised that the group is likely to succeed, and the company has confirmed that it intends to appeal the award in its entirety. In February 2027, a panel of three senior independent arbitrators will hear the appeal. Once the panel makes a decision, it is final and cannot be appealed.
Whether Spur’s confidence is entirely justified or partially strategic is still up for debate. Businesses that receive unfavorable rulings frequently display optimism in public, which isn’t always a criticism because it can be both sincere and calculated at the same time. It is evident that Spur’s management has emphasized the company’s financial stability, pointing out that robust trading over the previous five years has accumulated enough cash that dividend plans and liquidity are unaffected. Even tho the R129.5 million charge will clearly affect the financial results for the year ended June 30, 2026, which are scheduled for full release on August 20, that is a comforting signal.
The larger issue this dispute brings up is one that South African business circles have previously debated: what is the appropriate level of legal weight for an oral agreement? Spur committed, according to GPS. According to Spur, the talks never resulted in a legally binding agreement. A facility designed specifically for that purpose, years of negotiation, and a multimillion-rand legal battle that doesn’t seem to be ending amicably are all located somewhere between those two positions.
This specific rib deal will have a lasting impact that goes well beyond the balance sheet, regardless of the decision made by the appeal panel in February of next year.
