South Africa’s best‑known agricultural crowdfunding platform, Livestock Wealth, has been wound up by order of the Gauteng High Court, drawing a line under months of investor complaints, a contested convertible loan, and a failed attempt to place the company under supervision.
The judgment, delivered electronically by Acting Judge JF Pretorius, dismisses a business rescue application brought by founder and sole director Ntuthuko Shezi and simultaneously orders the final liquidation of Livestock Wealth (Pty) Ltd. The court found the company was both commercially and factually insolvent, and that the rescue plan amounted to little more than “speculation and broad optimism”.
The ruling marks a dramatic reversal of fortune for a startup that had been holding itself out as operationally sound. As recently as its concluding statements on a parallel regulatory investigation, the company insisted that its “core business continues without interruption”. The liquidation now places all of its assets in the hands of the Master of the High Court.
A business model on the edge of regulation
Founded in 2015, Livestock Wealth allowed retail investors to fund cattle, macadamia trees and other agricultural assets via a digital platform, with returns expected when assets were sold or matured. The model, often described as “crowd‑farming”, attracted thousands of users and, in 2022, a publicised investment from the Mineworkers Investment Company’s Khulisani Ventures vehicle.
That backing was structured, at least in part, through a ZAR3 million (USD 61,000) convertible loan agreement that would later become the trigger for the company’s demise. Under the deal, Khulisani Ventures had the right to convert the loan into equity on maturity or to demand early repayment if certain default events occurred. It also gave the investor extensive information rights and a board observer seat — tools that would prove critical as Livestock Wealth’s finances deteriorated.
For much of its life, the company operated in a grey regulatory zone. South Africa’s Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) concluded a two‑year investigation earlier in 2026, finding that Livestock Wealth’s core agricultural offerings did not constitute “financial products” under the FAIS Act. The regulator imposed a modest ZAR50,000 fine on the company and on Shezi personally for misleadingly displaying the FSP licence number of a dormant subsidiary, Livestock Wealth Financial Services, on the main operating entity’s website. That subsidiary’s licence subsequently lapsed.
Crucially, the FSCA’s enforcement outcome did not address a wave of investor grievances that had been building since early 2024: missed withdrawals, long‑delayed redemptions, and an opaque structure where investors said they had no direct relationship with the underlying farmers. One stokvel (community savings group) claimed it was owed nearly ZAR140,000, despite written repayment commitments. Livestock Wealth had argued that the delays were caused by farmers’ non‑performance and that its terms disclaimed liability — a framing that some investors disputed, insisting they dealt exclusively with the platform.
The loan default that unravelled everything
While the FSCA inquiry was playing out, tensions between Livestock Wealth and Khulisani Ventures were escalating. The investor had repeatedly demanded the financial information it was contractually entitled to — monthly management accounts, bank statements, and quarterly reporting. None was forthcoming.
In December 2023, Khulisani Ventures put Livestock Wealth on notice of default and gave it until February 2024 to cure the breaches. Instead of producing the documents, Livestock Wealth asked for a further ZAR6.8 million ($416,113 USD) loan to “pay out overdue investor returns while we collect from the farmers” — a request the court later characterised as an implicit admission that the company could not meet its obligations.
By June 2024, Khulisani Ventures had declared an event of default, accelerated the entire loan, and demanded immediate repayment of the outstanding capital and interest, which by July 2025 stood at roughly ZAR4.2 million. When Livestock Wealth refused to pay, the investor served a statutory demand and launched a liquidation application in November 2024.
The rescue that never was
Days before that application was set down, Shezi — the company’s executive director, majority shareholder and primary funder — filed an urgent business rescue application. He claimed that Livestock Wealth was financially distressed but argued there was a reasonable prospect of saving it, primarily by restructuring its financing, excluding Khulisani Ventures, and purchasing the company’s business as a going concern.
The court was unpersuaded. While the judge accepted that the company was indeed financially distressed — a conclusion Shezi himself had made inevitable by detailing liabilities of at least R26 million ($1.58 million USD) against recurring losses — the rescue plan failed to meet the statutory threshold.
“The applicant,” Pretorius AJ wrote, “must provide a factual foundation or cogent evidential basis showing why rescue is reasonably attainable … Vague statements such as that funding may become available, contracts may revive, or profitability may return, without evidential support, should be rejected.”
Shezi’s proposals were found to be “speculative”, lacking any detail on which assets could be realised, how much they might yield, or where new investment would come from. His suggestion that a business rescue practitioner could later formulate a plan was dismissed as insufficient under established Supreme Court of Appeal authority. The court also noted that he had refused to inject further funds while Khulisani Ventures remained involved — a condition that itself made a rescue illusory.
The business rescue application was dismissed with costs, and the court proceeded immediately to a final winding‑up order.
Contradictory accounts sink the defence
In opposing the liquidation, Livestock Wealth argued that its debt was disputed on bona fide grounds, and pointed to an arbitration clause in the loan agreement that it said should have been invoked before any court action. The judge rejected both arguments.
On the arbitration point, the ruling held that a private dispute resolution clause does not oust the court’s insolvency jurisdiction, which is collective in nature and affects all creditors. More damaging, however, were the factual inconsistencies that emerged from Shezi’s own affidavits. In the business rescue application, he had enthusiastically demonstrated that the company was financially distressed; in the liquidation answering affidavit, he sought to deny commercial insolvency. The court could not reconcile the two.
“Mr Shezi … is the deponent of both the answering affidavit in the liquidation application and the founding affidavit in the business rescue application,” Pretorius AJ observed. “He emphatically confirmed … that Livestock is financially distressed. This directly contradicts Livestock’s denial of commercial insolvency.”
The judge also noted that Livestock Wealth had never repaid any part of the admitted loan capital, stating: “The best proof of solvency is payment.”
What happens next
A final liquidation order means a liquidator will take control of Livestock Wealth’s assets and affairs, and creditors — including the many retail investors who used the platform — will be invited to prove claims. Because the company had never published recent audited financials and the Enterprise report commissioned by Khulisani Ventures had flagged material uncertainties around farmer collections, the extent of recoveries is unclear.
The judgment does not determine whether investors’ funds were misappropriated or commingled. However, the court’s finding that no contracts existed between investors and farmers — a point Livestock Wealth did not contradict in court — may affect how investor claims are treated. It also raises fresh questions about the platform’s long‑held position that it was a mere intermediary.
For its part, Livestock Wealth had previously told media that the FSCA’s probe had found no misappropriation and that it had “accounted for every transaction involving investor funds”. The FSCA’s own enforcement outcome did not address the substance of withdrawal complaints. That distinction may soon matter less: with the company in liquidation, the immediate question is no longer regulatory classification but whether there are assets left to distribute.
The Mineworkers Investment Company’s Khulisani Ventures, which triggered the winding‑up, will rank alongside other unsecured creditors. Its original investment was touted as part of a strategy to back scalable black‑owned agribusiness. The loan it advanced — and never recovered — now forms the basis of the very order that shut the company down.
For an agritech pioneer that once claimed to manage over ZAR100 million in assets, the final chapter is a cautionary tale about the gap between regulatory clearance and commercial viability. The court’s terse conclusion captures the essence: “Livestock cannot meet current demands and remain profitable.”
Shezi could not immediately be reached for comment on the ruling.