Identity
No legal entity or registration number is shown in the supplied schedule.
Approval evidence file · 0001
Nomasonto Spazashop
Original 162 · included in Annexure A
Dated research notes available
One approval row, with its linked public evidence and dated research. A company-page match is not automatically a confirmed applicant identity. Approval is not proof of payment.
- Support-package value
- R 65 000
- Approval date as listed
- 09-04-25
- Municipality / district
- Abaqulusi / Greater Sekhukhune
- Province
- Limpopo
01 · Source record
Where this row comes from
Annexure A · row 1 of 1,386. This is also one of the original 162 rows. It is counted once in the full register, not added again.
Annexure A is a SACR-shared public-channel copy. Its chain of custody to SEDFA has not been independently verified. The source copy is preserved below.
Earlier transcription
Nomasontho Spazashop
Annexure A transcriptionNomasonto Spazashop
Both names remain searchable. This is a source-transcription difference, not evidence that the company changed its name.02 · Company connections
The public evidence attached to this row
No approved current company file attached.
The approval entry remains searchable. This does not mean it was never searched, is unregistered or is ineligible. Any earlier research is retained below; overall search completion does not establish this applicant’s identity.
See search coverage and its limits →03 · Research history
Earlier findings stay on the record
These are dated observations, not additional beneficiaries or a current status verdict. Later sources can add to or conflict with earlier ones.
13 August 2026 · original research notes
Historical assessment; read the later company evidence above before relying on an earlier unresolved finding.
The disclosed geography is internally inconsistent. AbaQulusi is in Zululand District, KwaZulu-Natal—not Greater Sekhukhune, Limpopo.
Location
The province and district do not correspond with the municipality printed in the source record.
Permits and ownership
The due-diligence records needed to verify these criteria were withheld.
Question recorded in that pass: Which province, district and municipality were verified for this application?
04 · What remains open
What would close the gaps?
- A source-backed legal-identity link wherever the existing match is only a candidate.
- Dated shop-operation and eligibility records for this approval.
- A row-level delivery or payment record, reconciled to the approval and recipient.
This opens a search, not a verified pin: Search Google Maps ↗.
New evidence should attach to this same row and retain its source and review date. Shared names, officers or repeated schedule entries are leads to test, not findings of wrongdoing.