The EAAB v.s. REBOSA- What does it all mean?

So we all have read or heard about REBOSA taking the EAAB to court about the non-issuance of a bunch of FFC's, but what does it all mean for the stakeholders of the Real Estate industry?

The answer is... Nothing. Yes, you read that right. You will see what I mean by reading a bit further.

REBOSA's case can be summed up as follows:

1. REBOSA submits weekly and bi-weekly reports to the EAAB on ongoing unresolved issues, which often go unresolved due to technical issues at the EAAB.

2. During communications with the EAAB, REBOSA brought up the IT issues and the EAAB said that the IT issues are in the process of being resolved. REBOSA found that despite this, many FFC's still went unissued.

3. The EAAB neither confirmed or denied any allegations.

4. It is clear that REBOSA feels the EAAB has not held up their end of the bargain pertaining to the Estate Agency Affairs Act of 1976.

5. The EAAB must issue everyone with FFC's who have applied for them as soon as possible.

The EAAB's case can be summed up as follows:

1. The EAAB feels that most of the applicants attached to this case has either already received an FFC, has not submitted all the required documents needed for FFC issuance, or is disqualified due to non-compliance with the Act.

2. The EAAB also argued that the individual applicants mentioned in the case must represent themselves and not be represented by REBOSA, as REBOSA is not a statutory regulator and has no jurisdiction in the matter.

3. The Judge did not accept the EAAB's affidavit with email proof of the applicants being contacted by the EAAB, which made the case biased in REBOSA's favor, because the facts of the matter was not looked at, rather the re-tape of the court.

4. The Court ruled based on affidavits handed in by the individual applicants, instead of the actual requirements for FFC issuance and whether these applicants met these requirements.

Conclusion by the court:

1. The EAAB must issue the applicants to the case who do not have FFC's, with valid FFC's within 8 days of the Judgement.

2. The EAAB must provide REBOSA and the public with an explanation as to why the IT problem has not been fixed to the extent it needs to be and explain why the problem with FFC issuance has not been resolved.

3. The EAAB must pay REBOSA all their legal fees for this case, as REBOSA has won the case.

4. The EAAB must also indicate to the court within 30 days how many applications for FFC's there were before 31 October for the renewal period of 2021.

5. The EAAB must indicate to the court the amount of Fidelity Funds held by the EAAB currently.

So here is my opinion on the whole matter:

The ruling on this matter did not help the industry as a whole in any way, shape or form.

The court wanted to prove a point with this case that no one is above the law. The court, in my opinion was biased toward REBOSA, because the EAAB did provide evidence of communication to agents and FFC's issued in respect of the outstanding FFC's even if it was filed late. The court argued that the affidavits submitted late by the EAAB is not allowed because it is not in the interest of justice served, with which I do not agree. The EAAB was supposed to provide evidence against the claims made by REBOSA and when the EAAB wanted to do this, it was struck.

The EAAB's legal council was lacking. They did not go the lengths as expected from an attorney to defend their client in the process. Documents was submitted late, the court was not notified as per the processes set in place, affidavits was not signed, and the list goes on. I earnestly believe that if the EAAB was represented by someone more motivated to win, they would have won the case.

As someone who is at the EAAB offices at least once a week and are in constant contact with them, I know that the EAAB and its employees are working tirelessly to help the agents of this country. The finance and registrations departments frequently work well into the night, and the managers of the registrations department always try and improve their department's dealings with agents.

Yes, there is no denying that the EAAB's system has a lot of issues, and should be looked at and treated as a matter of urgency, but one should also remember that the work needed on their IT systems will require the whole thing to be down for at least a week, which the industry cannot afford at the moment.

There is nothing 'in the interest of justice' in this judgement, as all it does is put more pressure on an already overloaded entity, without acknowledging the great work already done by the same entity.

So I close with this: There are a lot of agents who love to point fingers at the EAAB, because it is easiest to blame the Government entity for any shortcomings. How about we educate ourselves on the Act that governs our industry and the regulations as set out by the EAAB, before pointing fingers?

"Haal eers die balk uit jou eie oog uit voor jy die splinter in iemand anders s'n soek" - Afrikaans Proverb

With Love,