The High Court considered Sakeliga NPC’s challenge to parts of the definition of “property practitioner” in the Property Practitioners Act and to section 50(a)(x). It declared paragraph (b) of the definition inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to a limited extent, and declared section 50(a)(x) inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. The order also suspends part of the invalidity finding for 24 months and refers the declarations to the Constitutional Court for confirmation.
This appears to concern the scope of the Property Practitioners Act’s definition of “property practitioner” and the Fidelity Fund certificate requirement, and may be relevant to property industry compliance and constitutional litigation.
Evidence from source
5. Section 50(a)(x) of the Property Practitioners Act 22 of 2019 is declared inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
Supports: plain_summary sentence 2