Property regulator says transformation agenda on track despite Sakeliga court defeat

The Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) says property practitioners do not need black economic empowerment (BEE) certificates to renew their operating certificates ahead of the 31 October deadline.

This follows an 8 September ruling by the Pretoria High Court in favour of the business organisation Sakeliga, which declared unconstitutional the requirement to hold a valid BEE certificate as a precondition for obtaining a Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC).

“The BEE ruling still awaits Constitutional Court confirmation, and until it does, no applicant will be refused an FFC solely for lacking that certificate,” said PPRA CEO Thato Ramaili.

The regulator says the ruling does not repeal BEE law generally, nor will it slow its transformation efforts.

The Pretoria High Court also declared part of the Property Practitioners Act’s definition of a property practitioner unconstitutional because it was overly broad.

Sakeliga has since escalated the case to the Constitutional Court, seeking confirmation of the ruling on BEE certificates and appealing aspects of the high court judgment.

It wants to narrow the act’s broad definition of property practitioners, which, on a plain reading, could include people involved in selling, financing and advertising properties.

The PPRA is a statutory body established to regulate property practitioners, protect consumers, and advance transformation in the property sector.

Speaking at a media roundtable on Tuesday, Ramaili said the regulator’s transformation agenda remains on track despite the Sakeliga ruling.

The PPRA reports that 1 656 candidates have been placed through its One Learner, One Property Practitioner programme, against a target of 2 500 by 2029.

A further 844 practitioners had enrolled in its ‘principalisation’ programme, which aims to help qualified estate agents become principals in their own right and manage their own property firms.

The regulator met two of its three transformation targets in 2025/26, although enrolment in its new youth programme fell by 28%, from 839 to 607.

Estate access fees

A separate court case involved a dispute over what fees practitioners are required to pay to market or sell properties in residential estates.

Court documents indicate that these fees can range from R5 000 to R50 000.

Last week, the Johannesburg High Court dismissed an application by the Residential Communities Council and the Association of Residential Communities for a broad declaration that such fees did not constitute an undesirable business practice.

The PPRA opposed the application, arguing that the fees were too onerous for many practitioners.

Compulsory accreditation arrangements can also restrict homeowners’ choice of estate agent. Estates, meanwhile, have defended the charges as payment for services such as training on estate rules, security, advertising and administration.

The judgment does not make every estate fee lawful or unlawful, says the regulator. Instead, each arrangement must be assessed individually.

“The court has not given estate access fees a blanket clearance, so we will assess each arrangement on its merits,” said Ramaili.

The court also observed that charging for access to a market could disadvantage practitioners who cannot afford the fees and limit consumer choice. The implications therefore extend beyond practitioners: when the cost of entering a market restricts competition, consumers may have fewer options.

Regulator’s own performance

The PPRA also released its 2025/26 annual report, recording that it achieved 18 of its 22 annual targets.

It processed 32 170 applications, including 21 682 renewals, with the increase largely driven by the three-year renewal cycle. New registrations rose by 32.4% to 7 757.

However, the authority received a qualified audit opinion, which it attributed to penalties not being accounted for in the correct financial period. The Fidelity Fund and Transformation Fund received unqualified opinions, although material findings were noted.

The PPRA said it had an audit recovery plan in place and is targeting an unqualified audit opinion in 2026/27.

“An audit outcome is not a label to us,” it said.

“It shows where our controls must improve, and we are treating the finding with the seriousness it deserves.

“Trust is built in everyday decisions, such as a practitioner who meets the standard, a complaint treated fairly and a client’s money safeguarded.”

For practitioners whose FFCs are due for renewal, the immediate priority is the 31 October deadline.

The PPRA advises applicants to submit complete documentation, retain proof of payment, and use official channels to follow up on delays.

This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.