FIXSA!HomeSpaza Shop Fund · Master registerEvidence hub →

Approval evidence file · 0730

Emalangeni Tuck Shop

Expanded 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 60 000
Approval date as listed
24-10-25
Municipality / district
Edumbe / Zululand
Province
KwaZulu-Natal

01 · Source record

Where this row comes from

Annexure A · row 730 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.

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

EMALANGENI TUCK SHOP

B2004042531

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
Not shown in this public review
Legal form
Not shown
Incorporation date
Not shown

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 · 1 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

    Approval schedule · row 730

    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 ↗
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.

No earlier row-specific public research notes are attached in this release.

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.