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 60 000
Approval date as listed
22-11-25
Municipality / district
KwaDukuza / Ilembe
Province
KwaZulu-Natal
01 · Source record
Where this row comes from
Annexure A · row 299 of 1,386. This row is in the later part of Annexure A, beyond the original 162.
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.
2 public company files are linked in the approved review. Read each match basis; multiple candidates are kept separate.
Public company record · reviewed 28 August 2026
SIYAZAMA TUCKSHOP
B2010004600
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.
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.
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 · company check · K2025031758
SIYAZAMA TUCKSHOP
Historical link basis: name only candidate. Registry/public status comparison: aligned.
Source-reported status: In Business · Private company · incorporated 15 January 2025
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.