Legal identity
The schedule supplies a number-like beneficiary name, but no open company record is attached to this file.
Approval evidence file · 0003
K2024730888 (SOUTH AFRICA)
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
- 10-04-25
- Municipality / district
- Breede Valley / Overberg
- Province
- Western Cape
01 · Source record
Where this row comes from
Annexure A · row 3 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
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 released schedule places “K2024730888 (SOUTH AFRICA)” in Overberg District and Breede Valley municipality. Breede Valley's own district is Cape Winelands, so the published geography is internally inconsistent; no open company source attached here resolves the beneficiary or shop.
Location
The schedule pairs Overberg District with Breede Valley, which belongs to Cape Winelands District.
Operating activity
No dated open source reviewed establishes the funded shop or grocery activity.
Permits and ownership
Not verifiable from the documents released to SACR.
Question recorded in that pass: Which district and municipality were verified, and what legal identity, shop premises and trading permit supported approval?
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.