Sakeliga, a business lobby group, has secured a court victory preventing the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) from refusing operating licences solely because an applicant does not hold a black economic empowerment (BEE) certificate. 

The Pretoria High Court declared section 50(a)(x) of the Property Practitioners Act unconstitutional. An interim order prevents the PPRA from enforcing the requirement while the Constitutional Court considers confirmation of the ruling.

Sakeliga brought the case in 2024 after the regulator required businesses to provide BEE certificates before receiving Fidelity Fund Certificates, the operating licences required for property practitioners. Operating without the required certificate is a criminal offence.

The Pretoria High Court found that the legislation failed to identify clearly what document applicants needed, who had to provide it, or what standard it had to satisfy. That uncertainty breached the rule of law and unjustifiably restricted the freedom to enter or remain in an occupation.

The PPRA had defended the requirement as a means of enforcing transformation. According to court papers quoted by Sakeliga, the regulator said its purpose was to prevent those who “pay lip service to transformation” from practising as property practitioners and earning an income from it.

The court also narrowed an overbroad part of the definition of property practitioner. The relief covers specified private property transactions outside ordinary business activity and people whose role is limited to carrying advertisements placed by others.

Should the Constitutional Court confirm that finding, Parliament will have 24 months to correct the definition, with the exclusions applying in the meantime. The PPRA was also ordered to pay Sakeliga’s costs.

Sakeliga described the ruling as a setback for efforts to make BEE a precondition for economic participation. It said the decision would remove certification costs and compliance burdens, and that it was assessing further legal options after obtaining only part of the narrowing of the definition of “property practitioner” it had sought.