A South African court has dismissed an attempt by residential estates to win blanket legal protection for levying accreditation fees on estate agents. The decision, delivered on 20 October 2026 by the Gauteng Local Division in Johannesburg, rejected an application from the Residential Communities Council (RCC)-which represents 181 estates-seeking confirmation that such fees did not qualify as an undesirable business practice under regulation 35 of the Property Practitioners Regulations, 2022. Even if an estate falls outside the PPRA’s reach, the agent who paid does not.
The RCC, supported by the Association of Residential Communities (ARC), had argued that the Property Practitioners Act applies only to agents, not estates. This meant the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) lacked authority to challenge fees set by homeowner associations or body corporates. Estates have historically defended these charges as necessary to cover expenses such as agent training, security during open days, marketing, and administrative costs. Annual fees typically range from R5,000 to R50,000 per estate, on top of agents’ existing PPRA registration costs and Fidelity Fund certificates.
Judge NS Krüger found that the RCC had not proven its claim for broad legal immunity. Instead, the lawfulness of these fees must now be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering factors like the type of organization involved, the services provided, the fee structure, and the conditions under which they are imposed. The judge cautioned that blanket approval for such fees could restrict consumer choice, inflate costs, and create obstacles for new practitioners. The ruling also required the RCC to cover the PPRA’s legal expenses, including fees for two counsel under Scale C, the highest cost bracket for cases of exceptional complexity.
Read Also: Rebosis shares become worthless on JSE
The PPRA has consistently opposed these fees, maintaining they violate regulation 35, which bans undesirable business practices. In November 2025, the authority suspended enforcement of the rule against estates while the RCC’s court case proceeded, requiring agents to provide written commitments to pay fees if the estates succeeded. That suspension remains in place, but its continuation depends on whether the RCC files an appeal. The judgment itself is marked as not reportable, meaning it does not establish a binding legal precedent, and the decision could still be challenged in a higher court.
The judgment also shows disparities in the industry. One case mentioned in court involved a homeowner fined R10,000 for selling their property through a registered spouse who had not paid the estate’s accreditation fee. The ruling cuts both ways. It does not make every estate accreditation fee unlawful, but it doesn’t give estates permission to charge them either.
