Livestock Wealth (Pty) Ltd, South Africa’s best-known agricultural crowdfunding platform, has been refused permission to appeal against the liquidation order that shut it down.
Acting Judge JF Pretorius dismissed the application with costs on 31 August 2026, finding no reasonable prospect of success and no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
The ruling follows a final liquidation order on 8 May 2026, when the same court dismissed founder Ntuthuko Shezi’s business rescue application and placed the company into final liquidation. The court found Livestock Wealth was commercially and factually insolvent, and that the rescue plan was “speculation and broad optimism”.
At the centre of the dispute was a ZAR3 million ($184k) convertible loan from MIC Khulisani Ventures, a minority shareholder. Under clause 10.3, Livestock Wealth was required to provide monthly management accounts, bank statements and quarterly reporting. MIC demanded compliance repeatedly. In December 2023, it gave notice of default and until February 2024 to cure. Livestock Wealth promised on 21 February 2024 to provide the information within 30 days but did not.
Instead, according to the May judgment, it asked for a further ZAR6.8 million ($419K USD) loan to “pay out overdue investor returns while we collect from the farmers” — which the court saw as an admission it could not meet its obligations.
In June 2024, MIC accelerated the loan. Paragraph 5.4 of the notice cited Livestock Wealth’s failure to adhere to accounting standards, doubts about its financial information, and its failure to rectify its reporting. By July 2025, the outstanding amount was about ZAR4.2 million ($259K USD). Livestock Wealth did not pay, and MIC launched liquidation proceedings in November 2024.
In its leave application, Livestock Wealth argued that the debt was bona fide disputed on reasonable grounds under the Badenhorst rule, that paragraph 5.4 did not invoke a reporting default, and that the dispute should have been arbitrated. It also said investors contracted with farmers, not with the company.
The court rejected these arguments. It found paragraph 5.4, read with earlier correspondence, sufficiently identified the continuing reporting default. Clause 12.7 did not require the notice to cite a specific subclause. Livestock Wealth failed to provide a positive, particularised account of compliance — no reports, dates, recipients or proof of delivery. There was therefore no genuine factual conflict requiring trial.
On arbitration, the court held that a private dispute resolution clause does not oust the court’s insolvency jurisdiction. The court also said the investor issue did not decide the case. Livestock Wealth’s failure to provide the required financial reports was on its own enough to justify calling in the loan.
The May judgment had already highlighted contradictions in Shezi’s affidavits. In the business rescue application, he demonstrated the company was financially distressed; in the liquidation answering affidavit, he denied commercial insolvency. The court could not reconcile the two. It also noted: “The best proof of solvency is payment.”
The liquidation follows a two-year FSCA investigation, concluded in 2026, which found the company’s core offerings were not “financial products” under the FAIS Act and fined it ZAR50,000 for displaying a dormant subsidiary’s licence number. The regulator did not address investor complaints about missed withdrawals, which had been building since early 2024.
A final liquidation order means a liquidator will take control of assets, and creditors — including retail investors — will be invited to prove claims. The extent of recoveries is unclear.
Livestock Wealth may still petition the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave. Shezi could not immediately be reached for comment.