Section 67 of the Property Practitioners Act is not a guideline. It is a hard legal line. It states that no mandate may be accepted by a property practitioner unless the seller or landlord has first provided a completed and signed disclosure form. Despite this, many in the property industry continue to treat disclosure as an administrative afterthought — or worse, a courtesy that can be skipped if inconvenient.

But the consequences are real. If the form is missing, not signed, or not attached to the agreement, the sale or lease must be read as if no defects or deficiencies were disclosed. This puts both the seller and the property practitioner at risk — not only of reputational damage or contractual disputes, but of personal liability for defects that were known but not disclosed.

The Property Practitioners Act 22 of 2019

Section 67 of the Property Practitioners Act 22 of 2019 (PPA) requires property practitioners to obtain a completed disclosure form from the seller or landlord before accepting a mandate, and to ensure that form is given to a buyer or tenant before they make an offer.

Legal Wording of Section 67

Section 67 reads as follows:

(1) A property practitioner is obligated to:

•  decline a mandate unless the seller or lessor has completed and signed the required disclosure form in the prescribed format; and
• provide a copy of this completed disclosure form to any prospective purchaser or lessee who intends to make an offer on the property.

(2) The signed disclosure form — completed by all relevant parties — must be attached to any agreement of sale or lease. This form becomes an integral part of the contract. If no disclosure form is completed, signed, or attached, the agreement is deemed to have been concluded as though no property defects or shortcomings were disclosed to the buyer or lessee.
(3) A property practitioner who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (1) may face liability from the affected consumer.
(4) This section does not prevent the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority from taking disciplinary steps or imposing penalties on the practitioner.
(5) This section does not prevent the buyer or tenant from undertaking their own inspection to independently verify the property’s condition before finalising the deal.

The Disclosure Form Is a Prescribed Document

The disclosure form referred to in the Act is a standardised, legally prescribed template. It must be signed by all parties involved and must be attached to the final agreement of sale or lease. Property practitioners are also required to retain these forms for a period of five years — whether they relate to the sale, lease, purchase, or financing of property.

Can Someone Else Fill Out the Disclosure Form?

A common question is whether someone authorised by the seller or lessor can complete the form on their behalf — for example, when the seller resides overseas or is otherwise unavailable.

The answer is found in Subparagraph 6 of the mandatory disclosure form, under “Owner’s Certification,” which states:

“The owner hereby certifies that the information provided in this report is, to the best of the owner’s knowledge and belief, true and correct as at the date when the owner signs this report.”

Following this, Subparagraph 7 — “Certification by Person Supplying Information” — adds:

“If a person other than the owner of the property provides the required information, that person must certify that he/she is duly authorised by the owner to supply the information and that he/she has supplied the correct information on which the owner relied for the purposes of this report. In addition, that the information contained herein is, to the best of that person’s knowledge and belief, true and correct as at the date on which that person signs this report.”

Therefore, yes — a third party may complete the disclosure form, but only if they are explicitly authorised to do so by the owner and can certify the accuracy of the information provided. However, the owner must still sign the form to confirm reliance on the supplied information.

What Happens if No Disclosure Form Is Attached to the Sale or Lease Agreement?

Section 67(2) clearly outlines the implications of failing to attach a disclosure form to the agreement. If there is no completed and signed disclosure form included, the agreement will be read and enforced as if the seller or landlord made no disclosures whatsoever about the property’s condition. This can place them — and potentially the property practitioner — in a legally vulnerable position if the buyer or tenant later raises complaints about defects.

What Happens if No Disclosure Form Is Attached to the Mandate?

Another important issue is what happens when a practitioner accepts a mandate from a seller or lessor without first obtaining a signed disclosure form — for instance, where the property owner is based overseas and claims not to have sufficient knowledge of the property’s condition.

Section 67(1)(a) is explicit: a mandate may not be accepted unless the disclosure form has been fully completed and signed. Ignoring this requirement carries two levels of risk:

1. Regulatory Sanction - Accepting a mandate without the disclosure form constitutes a minor contravention under Regulation 38 of the PPA. The penalty for this breach is R15,000.
2. Personal Liability - The far greater risk lies in the potential civil liability to the purchaser. If the mandate is accepted without the form, and the property is sold without disclosures, the sale agreement will be deemed to contain no disclosures of defects. If the purchaser later identifies a defect that the seller knew about but failed to disclose, the property practitioner could be held personally liable for damages.

This is especially relevant in property sales, where the legal and financial consequences of non-disclosure are far more severe than in leases. For this reason, strict compliance with section 67 is not just a regulatory checkbox — it is essential risk management for all property professionals.

VDM Attorneys – Property Lawyers in Sandton

The obligations created by Section 67 are not merely procedural — they are enforceable, high-risk triggers for liability. Whether you’re a property practitioner navigating conflicting instructions, or a seller uncertain about how disclosure affects your position, ignoring the requirements of the Property Practitioners Act is not an option.

At VDM Attorneys, our experienced property lawyers assist professionals and private clients with risk-sensitive property transactions, compliance with statutory duties, and dispute prevention before issues escalate. From reviewing mandates to advising on disclosure protocols, we work to ensure your processes hold up — legally and commercially.

If you’re involved in a property transaction where a disclosure form is missing, incomplete, or contested, speak to us before you move forward. Clarity now prevents costly consequences later.