On 20 October 2026 the Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg (Krüger AJ) dismissed, with costs of two counsel, an application by the Residential Communities Council (RCC) for a declarator that estates charging property practitioners a fee before allowing them to market or sell inside the estate are not engaged in an undesirable business practice under regulation 35 of the Property Practitioners Regulations, 2022.
The result is narrower than the headlines suggest. The court did not declare accreditation fees unlawful, nor did it find that homeowners' associations or bodies corporate are property practitioners. It simply refused to grant blanket immunity to every estate in the country.
Background
Many estates require agents to register with the HOA, attend an induction and pay a fee before listing or showing property. The RCC, representing about 181 estates, said the fee pays for training on estate rules, show-day security, website advertising and administration. The PPRA opposed, supported by REBOSA, whose members employ roughly 17 800 practitioners. REBOSA argued that agents need no estate training and that compulsory fees shrink the pool of agents available to sellers.
The PPRA cited concrete examples: Copperleaf demanded R5 000 and refused levy clearance figures on sales by non-paying agents, and Woodlands imposed a R10 000 "penalty" on a private seller for not using an accredited agent, which the conveyancers paid under protest to secure transfer. Fees across estates reportedly range from R5 000 to R50 000 a year.
The legal framework
The Property Practitioners Act 22 of 2019 applies to the marketing, sale, letting and management of immovable property. Chapter 9 governs practitioner conduct, and the definition of "property practitioner" is wide. Regulation 35.1.1.2 names, as an actor, any party controlling or managing a residential development, expressly including bodies corporate and HOAs. Regulations 35.1.1.3 to 35.1.1.7 then prohibit receiving money for preferential marketing treatment, requiring sales through designated practitioners, penalising non-compliance, and arrangements that advantage or exclude particular practitioners. Under section 62(3), a practitioner engaged in a prohibited practice risks loss of the Fidelity Fund certificate, a fine or a reprimand.
The reasoning
The RCC ran a pure jurisdictional argument: HOAs and bodies corporate are not property practitioners, so Chapter 9 and the PPRA cannot reach them. The PPRA argued for a purposive reading, calling the fee a "fig leaf" for a revenue stream that excludes emerging practitioners.
Applying Endumeni, the court found the decisive problem was evidence. Whether an estate is a practitioner depends on whether it manages for gain, which turns on its founding documents and actual operations. The fee and what it buys vary from estate to estate. No member estate filed a confirmatory affidavit. And the order as framed would immunise every estate nationwide, including any that do fall within the Act. The court added that the practice may well be the very mischief regulation 35 targets, as it restricts consumer choice, raises costs and creates a barrier for new entrants.
What remains open
Whether estates are practitioners, whether the PPRA has jurisdiction over them, and whether any particular fee is unlawful were all left undecided. The judgment is unreportable, given by an acting judge, and may be appealed.
Why it matters to practitioners
The sting is in paras [42] and [46]: an agent who pays the fee "may well fall foul" of regulation 35. If estates sit outside the Act, the estate escapes while the paying practitioner remains exposed – caught, in the court's words, between the devil and the deep blue sea. Even "voluntary" premium-marketing fees may offend regulation 35.1.1.3.
Practitioners should audit which estates charge fees, establish what each fee buys, take advice before paying for access, record refusals and penalties, warn sellers and conveyancers early about transfer delays, pay only under protest, and set policy at principal level. Estates, for their part, should review their founding documents and rules: legitimate access and conduct-rule interests can usually be met without charging agents for the right to work.
Until the jurisdiction question is settled, the safest course is not to buy access.