FIXSA!HomeSpaza Shop Fund · Master registerEvidence hub →

Approval evidence file · 0016

GAFFY TRADING

Original 162 · included in Annexure A

Public company evidence linked

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 56 000
Approval date as listed
26-10-25
Municipality / district
Hantam / Namakwa
Province
Northern Cape

01 · Source record

Where this row comes from

Annexure A · row 16 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.

02 · Company connections

The public evidence attached to this row

1 public company file is linked in the approved review. Read each match basis; multiple candidates are kept separate.

Public company record · reviewed 28 August 2026

GAFFY TRADING

K2017402438

Link basis: exact normalised public-name match; entity link remains a candidate

An exact public company page corroborates the legal entity. A name-level schedule match does not by itself prove applicant identity, operation, eligibility, approval, disbursement or payment.

Source-reported status
GAFFY TRADING is not in process of liquidation.
Legal form
Private company
Incorporation date
2017-09-17

Other schedule links for this company: None in this public review. These links do not establish multiple payments.

Officers, related companies & web footprint

Officers listed by the public source

No public officer entry attached in this review.

Related companies

No public related-company entry attached in this review.

Additional public sources

No additional public source attached in this review.

Four checks. Separate conclusions.

These stages describe the evidence shown here—not a score for the business.

  1. Registry searched

    Not shown per file

    The site-wide registry count is not a per-company receipt. This file cites an open directory record; it does not expose an authenticated search log.

  2. Applicant identity

    Candidate link only

    0 of 1 linked approval rows print this exact identifier. This does not establish eligibility or payment.

    Evidence for this stage ↗

  3. Public footprint checked

    Directory reviewed

    0 additional source leads recorded. A directory record or source lead does not, on its own, verify a shop's operation.

    Evidence for this stage ↗

  4. Funding evidence verified

    Payment not established

    Approval entries are available. No linked payment evidence is supplied in this company release.

Open the evidence timeline · 3 dated entries

Events and discoveries

Ordered by event date where known, otherwise by capture date. A capture records when we saw a source—not when its status took effect.

  1. Reported event

    Incorporation reported by directory

    Event date
    Captured / reviewed

    This is the directory's reported incorporation date, not the date a shop opened or funding eligibility was established.

    Read the supporting source ↗
  2. Reported event

    Approval schedule · row 16

    Event date
    Captured / reviewed
    Not recorded for this event

    This row is a candidate company link; the applicant identity remains unresolved.

    Read the supporting source ↗
  3. Source observation

    Status observed: GAFFY TRADING is not in process of liquidation.

    Event date
    Effective date unknown
    Captured / reviewed

    record capture. A capture date does not establish when this status began or ended.

    Read the supporting source ↗
Open this company in the cross-check ledger →

A directory role does not establish ownership or control. Matching officer names do not prove the same natural person, and a related-company link does not establish receipt of funding.

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.

24 August 2026 · GAFFY TRADING

Probable exact-name match · Official sector register

A public private-security-sector register contains the exact business name.

No open enterprise number ties the register entry conclusively to the Hantam row, and the source does not establish grocery trading.

13 August 2026 · original research notes

Historical assessment; read the later company evidence above before relying on an earlier unresolved finding.

An open private-security sector register contains the exact name Gaffy Trading. That is a relevant public identity lead, but without an open enterprise number it cannot conclusively be linked to the Hantam beneficiary, and it does not document grocery retail or the funded premises.

Identity recorded in that pass: GAFFY TRADING · · probable (medium confidence). This is the historical assessment, not a replacement for the current match basis.

Identity

The uncommon exact name appears in a public sector register, but no open enterprise number links it conclusively to the schedule row.

Business activity

The public record concerns private security and does not establish a spaza operation.

Location

No open source reviewed establishes the Hantam trading premises.

Eligibility records

The inspected shop, permit and ownership evidence remain unavailable.

Question recorded in that pass: Is the funded beneficiary the same Gaffy Trading in the security-sector register, and what Hantam retail premises were verified?

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.