Why a Fidelity Fund Certificate is important for you and your estate agent

“I’ve finally received my qualification to practise as an estate agent, but am still waiting for my Fidelity Fund Certificate. Some people say I can start practising as an estate agent as long as I’ve applied for my Fidelity Fund Certificate. Is this correct, and can I already practise as an estate agent?”

In terms of the Estate Agency Affairs Act (“Act”) an estate agent must have a valid Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC) in order to receive any payment or commission arising from his or her duties as an estate agent. 

In clarifying this provision it has been held by our courts that even if a FFC has been applied for, if a valid FFC was not held by the estate agent at the time of the transaction in terms of which he or she is claiming a commission or payment, the estate agent is not entitled to any commission or payment for such transaction. 

The purpose of the requirement for an estate agent to have a FFC is to ensure that the public is not misled and as such the FFC is an important control measure to help reduce the risk to the public against corrupt agents.

Accordingly, a FFC will not be issued to any estate agent that, among other things:

(1) has been dismissed from a position of trust due to improper conduct;
(2) has at any time been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty;
(3) is an unrehabilitated insolvent;
(4) is of unsound mind;
(5) does not comply with the prescribed standard of training; or
(6) does not have the prescribed practical experience.

When the new Property Practitioners Bill is enacted, conveyancers may also not pay out commission, unless the estate agent has provided the conveyancer with a certified copy of his/her valid FFC. It would therefore be wise/prudent for buyers and sellers to request proof of a valid FFC before associating themselves with an estate agent or agency.

March 11, 2019
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest