Zap Hub, the South African property platform founded by businesswoman Bronwyn Rodrigues, has lost its bid to appeal a costs order arising from an urgent dispute with the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority and the Minister of Human Settlements.

Judge S D J Wilson of the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg dismissed Zap Hub’s application for leave to appeal with costs on September 29, with reasons handed down on September 30, 2026.

Court rejects constitutional argument

The company had accepted the court’s June decision to strike its original urgent application from the roll but challenged the accompanying costs order, arguing that the Biowatch principle should apply because the case raised constitutional issues. Wilson rejected that argument, finding that Zap Hub had not properly identified a constitutional issue in its papers and that the litigation was primarily commercial in nature.

Zap Hub had argued that it should not face adverse costs because it was seeking to hold a state regulatory authority accountable for alleged failures in enforcing the Property Practitioners Act.

The court found that the company was seeking to compel the PPRA to exercise its powers against third parties that were not joined to the proceedings.

Wilson also found that Zap Hub had approached the urgent court without establishing why it could not obtain relief through the ordinary court process. The judgment cited the Constitutional Court’s decision in Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister in the Presidency, which recognises that inappropriate urgent litigation can attract adverse costs.

Bronwyn Rodrigues challenges property-platform regulation

At the centre of the dispute is Zap Hub’s approach to regulatory compliance. The platform voluntarily registered with the PPRA and obtained a Fidelity Fund Certificate, requiring property practitioners listing on its platform to hold valid FFCs.

Bronwyn Rodrigues argues that delays in processing FFC applications are preventing compliant practitioners from listing on Zap Hub while, in her view, competing platforms continue onboarding property listings.

Her affidavit refers to PPRA correspondence stating that Airbnb and Booking.com are not registered and do not hold FFCs, while no online advertising agency or platform is registered under the names Property24 or Private Property. However, Property24 and Private Property have disputed the interpretation, saying they have obtained legal opinions concluding that they are not required to register or hold FFCs.

Zap Hub seeks regulatory intervention

Bronwyn Rodrigues is seeking declaratory and mandatory relief against the PPRA, including orders requiring the authority to investigate the platforms named in her complaint, respond to outstanding complaints and process pending FFC applications within specified periods.

She also wants the PPRA to consider enforcement measures under Section 48(4) of the Property Practitioners Act relating to fees and commissions allegedly collected by unlicensed platforms.

Bronwyn Rodrigues, who built part of her career in Canada before returning to South Africa, founded Zap Hub as an all-in-one property and community ecosystem connecting buyers, sellers, renters, agents and service providers.

The latest ruling leaves the costs order intact while the broader regulatory questions surrounding online property platforms and the application of the Property Practitioners Act remain contested.