On 9 March 2026, South Africa’s first real estate EISA sitting went ahead, with no finished exam paper, impossible time limits, and candidates crying in the venue. The complaints that followed paint a picture of a system that was nowhere near ready.
The exam was supposed to be a milestone, the first sitting of the External Integrated Summative Assessment (EISA) for estate agent candidates in South Africa. Instead, it has become the clearest possible illustration of what happens when a national exam is rolled out before it is ready.
Property Professional has received feedback in the days that followed. It makes for difficult reading.
“The entire experience has left us traumatised. We are not guinea pigs, and we did not pay R12 000 to be used as guinea pigs by SSETA and QCTO.”
— Jax Els, Chas Everitt, Durban
Where the EISA fits — and why it matters
From 1 July 2024, new estate agents are to complete the Occupational Certificate: Real Estate Agent (SAQA ID 118714) at NQF Level 4 – a 10 to 12-month programme of knowledge modules, practical skills and workplace experience. The EISA is the national, closed-book exam that concludes that programme, administered by a QCTO-accredited assessment centre. Pass it, receive your Occupational Certificate (up to three months later), and only then can you register for the PPRA’s own Professional Designation Examination (PDE 4). No EISA pass, no PDE. No PDE, no full non-principal practitioner status.
The Property Practitioners Act allows 180 days for a candidate to qualify and write the PDE, with an optional 180-day extension. The PPRA, acknowledging that it was unworkable, extended the compliance period to 27 months from the date of a candidate’s first Fidelity Fund Certificate. Even that is now being exceeded.The exam was supposed to be a milestone, the first sitting of the External Integrated Summative Assessment (EISA) for estate agent candidates in South Africa. Instead, it has become the clearest possible illustration of what happens when a national exam is rolled out before it is ready.
The next EISA sitting is in October 2026. Results will most likely not be released in time for the February 2027 PDE. That means candidates writing in October cannot write their PDE until May 2027 at the earliest – more than two years after starting their qualification. For anyone who fails and must re-sit, add another full cycle.
“There is a very real possibility that some FFC certificates could expire during this process, requiring candidates to renew them at additional cost — because they cannot proceed to their PDE4 until the EISA has been passed.”
— Angelique Karatamoglou, Cape Town
The Act does not reflect this reality. The industry is operating in technical non-compliance with its own legislation, not through any fault of the candidates trapped inside it.
Forced to fly
Two weeks before the exam, Jax Els, a candidate agent at Chas Everitt in Durban, was told most venues had cancelled because they were simply not ready. She booked a flight to Cape Town. Candidates from KwaZulu-Natal, the Eastern Cape, and smaller centres around the country did the same, travelling at their own expense to one of the handful of venues still operational.
What happened in the exam room
At the Cape Town venue, candidates were handed an introductory document stating that the assessment was open-book and were asked to write their ID number to confirm they had brought preparation papers. The exam that followed was not open-book.
“By writing our ID numbers, it now appears on record that we agreed to open-book conditions — even though the exam was not written under open-book conditions. Many of us felt very uncomfortable and quite humiliated.”
— Angelique Karatamoglou
The paper ran to 40 to 50 pages. Candidates had three hours. Most could not finish. The structure made recovery almost impossible: a handful of multiple-choice questions, and the rest long-form essays worth 20 marks or more each – almost all focused on property developments.
“I work for Chas Everitt and do not deal with developments at all, nor was this even a scenario focused on in our course material. How are we supposed to show we can apply our knowledge when none of it is even relevant?”
— Jax Els
Several people cried. Isikolo, the training provider both candidates attended, called SSETA mid-exam to request extra time. The request was denied. A meeting between Isikolo and SSETA was called before candidates had even left the building.
Content that didn’t match the coursework
Both candidates are emphatic: their training provider was not at fault. Isikolo covered a wide variety of topics; Els knew the assigned material by heart. The problem was that SSETA and QCTO appeared to set an exam without reference to what providers had actually been teaching.
“None of the work we were told to study was even in this exam. We were left feeling utterly disappointed and incompetent — and we were not.”
— Jax Els
The disconnect between content and coursework was not the only systemic failure. Accredited Assessment Centres received no uniform guidelines for administering the examination. Training providers were given no standardised learning materials or guidance to prepare students — a gap that likely explains the wide variance in candidate experience. Some providers reportedly delayed their students’ writing of the first EISA altogether, wary that the process would lead to widespread failure and reputational damage. And examination fees, with no national pricing standard in place, ranged from R1,600 to R2,500 depending on the centre — an inequity that falls hardest on agents required to attend their nearest accredited venue.
Candidates had paid R12 000 to R13 000 in course fees plus R2,500 each for the exam itself — for an assessment that did not test what they had been taught. Candidates with doctor’s certificates granting extended writing time were also required to stop at the three-hour mark, with no accommodation made.
What candidates are asking for
Els is clear: “Scrap our exam, refund our money, and let us move on to PDE 4. Whatever this was is totally unacceptable.”
Karatamoglou ends her letter with a statement of what the system is supposed to deliver: practitioners who are “ethical, honest, knowledgeable” and capable of acting in clients’ best interests. “Unfortunately,” she writes, “after writing this exam, it was difficult to see how the assessment we were given truly demonstrated that.”
After the exam, various trainers have sent feedback surveys. Whether that leads to any action remains to be seen.
A possible way forward
“Rebosa has proposed repeatedly that the current dispensation be amended to allow estate agents to qualify either by the current process, or by one exam administered by the PPRA, based on the same curriculum. This could be an exam taken before entering the industry, per current regulations. It will be far more cost-effective and will prevent the current duplication and excessive fees. No amendment of the Act is required to achieve this, as the PPRA has the power to take the necessary decision right now,” says Jan le Roux, CE of Rebosa.
“Without urgent reform, the current training standards will continue to obstruct access to the sector, frustrate transformation, and prevent new candidates from earning a living in the very industry they are trying to join,” he concludes.
