MAIN IMAGE: Bronwyn Rodrigues – founder and CEO of Zap Hub, Charl Bruyns – CEO of Private Property, Nalen Naidoo – CEO of Property 24
Editor
Zap Hub, a South African all-in-one property platform connecting buyers, sellers, renters, verified agents and service providers, has launched urgent High Court proceedings against the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) and the Minister of Human Settlements, arguing that the regulator is enforcing the Property Practitioners Act selectively while allowing major competing platforms to operate without registration or Fidelity Fund Certificates (FFCs).
Zap Hub (Pty) Ltd, represented by its owner and director, Bronwynn Rodrigues, acting without legal representation, filed the application in the Gauteng Local Division in Johannesburg on 22 May 2026, requesting that the matter be heard on 2 June 2026.
The application
The application names seven platforms as direct competitors operating without valid FFCs: Airbnb, Booking.com, Lekkeslaap, Addprop, MyRoof, Private Property, and Property24. Rodrigues’s affidavit references a written response by the PPRA to a media query dated 5 May 2026, in which she states the authority confirmed that Airbnb and Booking.com are not registered and do not hold FFCs, and that no online advertising agency or platform is registered under the names of Property24 or Private Property.
Zap Hub registered voluntarily with the PPRA and obtained an FFC because it believed it was required to do so under the Act. As a registered and compliant entity, it applies the Act’s requirements to the practitioners who list on its platform, refusing to allow any agent or practitioner to advertise properties unless they hold a valid FFC.
Rodrigues argues that this commitment to compliance has become a competitive liability. Because the PPRA has fallen significantly behind in processing FFC applications, legitimate practitioners who have applied and paid are waiting months, and in some cases over a year, for certificates that have not been issued. Those practitioners cannot list on Zap Hub in the interim. Rodrigues contends that those practitioners can, however, list freely on Property24, Private Property (both longstanding platforms of over twenty years), and the other platforms named in the application, none of which, she alleges, are registered or checking FFCs.
Rodrigues describes the situation as one in which she is being penalised for compliance while her competitors are rewarded for non-compliance. She alleges that the PPRA’s processing backlog is directly preventing Zap Hub from onboarding new stock and effectively halting its core business operations, while what she characterises as unlicensed competitors capture market share.
The regulatory double standard argument
At the heart of the application is what Rodrigues describes as a regulatory double standard. Rodrigues’s affidavit references a written response by the PPRA to a media query dated 5 May 2026, in which she states the authority confirmed that Airbnb and Booking.com are not registered and do not hold FFCs, and that no online advertising agency or platform is registered under the names of Property24 or Private Property.
Rodrigues argues that this confirms all four are operating unlawfully. However, that conclusion is contested. Both Property24 and Private Property say they have obtained formal legal opinions confirming they are not required to register or hold FFCs, a position they have communicated to the PPRA. The Property Practitioners Act requires registration only of those who meet the definition of a property practitioner, and whether advertising portals meet that definition is precisely the question the courts may now be asked to resolve.
The application also relies on a written communication dated 17 May 2026 from Clarence Catin, the PPRA’s Executive Manager for Investigations and Enforcement, in which he stated that the Act is currently not being applied to the short-term rental sector and that the authority is still clarifying whether that sector falls within the property market contemplated by the Act, adding that it “cannot assist” with Rodrigues’s complaint in the meantime. Rodrigues argues that the Act has been in force since 2022 and that the PPRA’s position amounts to a deliberate policy choice to suspend an Act of Parliament rather than a legitimate administrative delay.
What Rodrigues is asking the court to do
She is seeking a declaratory order, arguing that the PPRA’s alleged inaction constitutes an unreasonable delay and a breach of its statutory duties under both the Property Practitioners Act and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. She is also seeking a mandamus, a court order compelling a public body to perform a duty it is legally obliged to carry out, directing the PPRA to investigate the listed platforms within 30 days, respond to her outstanding complaints within 14 days, process pending FFC applications within 21 days, and invoke Section 48(4) of the Act to recover fees and commissions allegedly collected by unlicensed platforms from South African consumers.
The platforms respond
Both companies named as the most prominent respondents have been unequivocal in rejecting the application’s premise.
Private Property CEO Charl Bruyns says the company has carefully assessed its position, with the benefit of formal legal opinions from specialist law firms. “That work consistently supports the position that property advertising portals, as media platforms that do not seek mandates or represent principals, do not fall within the Act’s regulatory scope,” he says. Bruyns takes particular issue with the way the question has been presented publicly. “Zap Hub has stated its view as though it were settled law when it is not, and risks creating unnecessary confusion in the market among consumers, property practitioners and platforms alike. The proper interpretation of legislation of this nature requires careful and considered legal analysis, analysis that is simply not reflected in the conclusions Zap Hub has drawn and published.”
On the court application itself, Bruyns is direct: “We regard it as misconceived and materially deficient, both procedurally and substantively, including the manner in which the Court’s jurisdiction is invoked and in the relief sought. We have every confidence that the judicial process will dispose of it quite quickly.”
Property24 CEO Nalen Naidoo draws a similar distinction between the platform’s function and that of a registered property practitioner. “Property24 provides digital marketing, brand-building and audience reach tools that enable real estate businesses and prospective buyers and tenants across the country to connect with each other,” he says. “Our role is not that of a Property Practitioner as defined in legislation. We do not broker property transactions, facilitate property sales on behalf of clients or, most importantly, from a Fidelity Fund certification point of view, hold or manage funds on behalf of other parties in relation to property transactions. We simply charge customers who use our marketing platform a fee, like newspapers and other media do for such services.”
Naidoo says Property24’s position has been confirmed on the basis of legal advice obtained after the Act was promulgated and communicated to the PPRA. He also questions the basis on which Rodrigues has reached her conclusions. “It is our respectful view that the Applicant has jumped to the incorrect conclusion that marketing platforms such as ours are Property Practitioners as legally defined. The Applicant has proceeded with the application, to which we are not a party, without asking us for our view. We completely disagree with the allegations that we are operating unlawfully.”
Property24 says it is aware of the proceedings and will monitor their outcome. “Property24 has an interest in the outcome and will keep an eye on what happens there,” Naidoo says.
Comparing the platforms
It is worth noting that the seven platforms named in the application perform vastly different functions, and grouping them together risks obscuring rather than clarifying the legal question. Airbnb, Booking.com, and Lekkeslaap are short-term accommodation booking platforms that process reservations, handle payments between guests and hosts, and take a commission on transactions concluded through their systems. Property24 and Private Property, by contrast, are property advertising portals that charge practitioners a listing or subscription fee and play no role in the transaction itself. Treating these as a single category for regulatory purposes stretches the comparison well beyond what the facts support.
It is now up to the PPRA to respond, and the Property Professional will provide further updates as they occur.
