Leonita Mhishi
FOR many Zimbabweans, the word “commission” in a property transaction can trigger an immediate reaction: five percent for what? To a buyer already stretching every dollar to acquire a house, stand, office or commercial property, the fee can look like an easy charge added to an already expensive transaction.
For the estate agent, however, commission is rarely the simple windfall it appears to be from the outside. Behind that percentage are listings, advertising, property inspections, viewings, negotiations, paperwork, client acquisition, compliance, office costs and, sometimes, months of work before a transaction finally produces a cent.
That tension deserves a more mature national conversation.
Zimbabwe’s property market is becoming increasingly important to household wealth, business investment and capital preservation. At the same time, the sector is undergoing institutional changes. The Estate Agents Council of Zimbabwe (EACZ), established under the Estate Agents Act [Chapter 27:17], regulates estate agency practice, registration and professional standards while administering the compensation fund.
Yet much of the public debate around estate agency commission remains trapped in one misleading question: “How much does the agent get?”
The better question is: what exactly is being paid for, when is it earned, who is entitled to it, and what happens to it before it reaches the individual negotiator?
These distinctions matter because the commission paid by a client and the commission eventually received by an individual agent are not necessarily the same thing.
Zimbabwe’s regulatory framework and industry practice create several layers between the property owner and the person who closes the deal. A client may pay an agency a commission under a mandate. Where another agency is involved, the amount may be shared between the two businesses. The agency may then divide its share with the individual negotiator according to a separate agreement.
This is where many disputes begin.
The Estate Agents Act regulates who can lawfully operate as an estate agent and provides mechanisms around professional conduct, trust accounts and public protection. But the internal division of an agency’s commission between the business and its negotiator is largely a contractual matter. That distinction is critical and is often lost in heated arguments over whether an agent “deserves” 50 percent, 60 percent or more.
In other words, the law does not simply prescribe that every negotiator must receive a particular percentage of the agency’s commission.
That should settle one common misconception. But it should not become a licence for agencies to do whatever they want.
A signed commission agreement is not decorative paperwork. It is the economic constitution of the relationship between an estate agency and its negotiator. It should spell out the split, whether that split is calculated on gross or net commission, who owns a lead, what happens when two agents claim the same client, when payment becomes due and what happens if an agent leaves before a transaction is completed.
Without these rules, the office becomes the courtroom.
Consider a familiar scenario. An agent spends much of the year producing little or nothing, while the agency continues paying rent, salaries, marketing expenses, subscriptions, administration costs and other overheads. Then, late in the year, the agent closes a substantial transaction and expects the commission split NOT contained in the existing agreement.
The agency may understandably feel aggrieved. It may ask: why should someone who contributed little for months receive the same treatment as an agent who consistently generated business?
That is a legitimate business question.
But there is an equally important question on the other side: can an agency wait until the money arrives and then change the rules because it feels the agent has not “earned” the agreed percentage?
The answer should be no. Fairness cannot mean one set of rules for calculating costs and another for calculating obligations.
If an agency believes its overheads are too high relative to an agent’s production, it has legitimate commercial tools available. It can introduce a desk fee, a graduated commission structure, minimum-production requirements or different commission tiers. But those arrangements should be agreed prospectively, not invented retrospectively when the first profitable transaction appears.
This is not merely a technical argument about contracts. It is about trust.
Zimbabwe’s property industry cannot afford a culture where both sides remember the agreement differently once money is on the table.
There is also a dangerous misconception about when commission is actually payable.
An accepted offer is not necessarily the same thing as cash in the agency’s bank account. Property transactions can remain subject to financing, tax clearance, rates clearance, title issues, regulatory approvals and other conditions before transfer is completed. The reference material distinguishes between commission being “earned” in the agency sense and becoming payable under the transaction’s agreed conditions.
This distinction is particularly relevant in Zimbabwe, where property transfers have historically involved substantial administrative work.
Recent developments suggest that the system is changing. The government’s digitisation of the Deeds Office is intended to reduce paperwork and speed up transactions. The Chief Registrar recently indicated that an ordinary uncomplicated transfer could take two to three weeks under the old process, while the digital platform is designed to allow conveyancers to upload documents electronically rather than physically moving between institutions.
That is good news for buyers, sellers and estate agents alike. The more efficient the transfer process becomes, the easier it should be to distinguish genuine payment delays from internal failures.
This distinction matters because “the money has not yet come” is not an adequate explanation forever.
If a transaction has not transferred, there may be a legitimate reason why commission has not been released. If the client has paid, the agency has received its commission and the agent’s contract says the agent should be paid within a defined period, then the argument changes fundamentally. It is no longer simply a delay.
The reference framework proposes a sensible test: has the client paid the agency, is there a specific external process still outstanding, and has the company provided a clear written trigger or date for payment?
Zimbabwe’s property professionals should embrace that kind of transparency.
Technology makes it increasingly possible. An agency should be able to show an agent whether a deal is at offer stage, awaiting conditions, awaiting transfer, awaiting client payment or ready for commission distribution. A simple digital dashboard could eliminate many arguments that currently happen in corridors, WhatsApp groups and boardrooms.
There is another issue that Zimbabweans should watch carefully: the difference between gross and net commission.
A headline commission percentage can be deceptive if the parties do not agree on what it is calculated against. VAT, co-agency payments and permissible transaction-specific deductions can affect the amount available for distribution. Zimra confirms that Zimbabwe’s standard VAT rate is currently 15,5 percent, effective from January 1, 2026.
So when somebody says, “I am getting 50 percent of the commission,” the obvious next question should be: 50 percent of what?
That single question could prevent a remarkable number of disputes.
The same principle applies when agents compare their packages with competitors. A firm advertising a 70 percent or 80 percent agent split may not be offering a better deal than a company offering 50 percent. The higher split could come with desk fees, fewer leads, reduced administrative support or greater responsibility for marketing.
Percentage alone is therefore a poor measure of value. The real measure is the entire economic package.
There is also a lesson here for property buyers and sellers. The commission should not be treated as an unexplained mystery buried in the transaction. Clients deserve to understand the rate, the mandate, whether another agency is involved and how the arrangement affects the transaction.
The EACZ itself places emphasis on professionalism, transparency and ethical conduct as part of its regulatory mandate.
As Zimbabwe’s property market evolves, transparency will become more important, not less.
The country’s ongoing title-deed validation and property-sector digitisation efforts make this particularly timely. The EACZ has argued that greater transparency in property records can strengthen confidence, reduce disputes and support investment.
The same philosophy should apply to commission.
A professional industry should not be afraid of showing how the money moves.
Ultimately, commission is neither a reward for occupying an office chair nor an automatic licence for an agency to confiscate an agent’s income. It is payment arising from a commercial relationship whose rules should be known before the work is done.
The agent has a responsibility to produce, comply with professional requirements and understand the agreement signed with the agency.
The principal has a responsibility to provide clear terms, honour those terms and manage poor performance through mechanisms agreed in advance.
And the regulator has a continuing responsibility to protect the public and strengthen professional standards without becoming the referee for every private contractual disagreement.
Zimbabwe needs fewer commission arguments and more commission clarity.
The answer is not necessarily lower fees. Nor is it necessarily higher agent splits.
The answer is certainty.
When everyone knows the rate, the calculation, the trigger, the deductions, the entitlement and the payment date, commission stops being a source of suspicion and becomes what it should have been all along: a transparent business cost tied to a measurable professional service.
For a property market trying to attract investment and rebuild confidence, that may be one of the easiest reforms to make — and one of the most valuable.
They are reputational events.
A profession can lose public confidence slowly, one unresolved dispute at a time. But it can also rebuild confidence through simple habits: written agreements, transparent calculations, clear payment triggers, visible transaction tracking and consistent enforcement of professional standards.
Ultimately, commission is neither a reward for occupying an office chair nor an automatic licence for an agency to confiscate an agent’s income. It is payment arising from a commercial relationship whose rules should be understood before the work is done.
Agents have responsibilities. They must produce, comply with professional requirements and understand the agreements they sign.
Principals have responsibilities too. They must establish clear terms, honour those terms and manage poor performance through mechanisms agreed in advance.
And the regulator has a continuing responsibility to protect the public and strengthen professional standards without becoming the referee for every private contractual disagreement.
Zimbabwe needs fewer commission arguments and more commission clarity.
More importantly, it needs to stop allowing the commission narrative to become a shorthand for everything that is supposedly wrong with estate agency.
The profession should not be defensive about being paid for professional work. But neither should it expect the public to accept charges it does not understand.
The answer is not necessarily lower fees. Nor is it necessarily higher agent splits. The answer is certainty.
When everyone knows the rate, the calculation, the trigger, the deductions, the entitlement and the payment date, commission stops being a source of suspicion and becomes what it should have been all along: a transparent business cost tied to a measurable professional service.
For a property market seeking greater investment, professionalism and public confidence, cleaning up the commission narrative may seem like a small reform.
It is not. It is about protecting the reputation of an entire profession — one transaction, one agreement and one clearly explained percentage at a time.
l Mhishi is the Principal Registered Estate Agent at HSP REALTY and can be reached on +263 772 329 569 or via email at leonita@hsp.co.zw