Thanks for sharing the graphs, glad we got there eventually.So...

Thanks for sharing the graphs, glad we got there eventually.

So you now understand that direct ownership and the difference of earnings flows with holdings company's and parent entities
Out of the SA "subsidiary" that applies for licensing they own 10% of WWI's, which on paper would be a "direct" interest. ( 7.4% realized )
26% plus 7.4% equals your famous "Bee Group owns 33.4% you keep pasting on every thread as your next go to line.

Overall ownership in realty is as below in ordinary fully paid shares.
26% BEE Group and 74% West WITS MLI Pty LTD,
West Wits were just trying to increase there ownership by 7.4% buyout BEE group from the SA Holdings company and own 100%.

BEE Groups, 7.4% realized stake is in the SA holdings company only congrats, its not the earnings entity so the cashflow isn't directed through it.
That's why you are not reading at the bottom of the above chart WWI 66.6% and BEE Group 33.4%.
The 10% is in cyberspace those classes of shares are ownership in licensing rights only not where they money flows or the same class of shares.

That is why you are still wondering looking at the graph why it reads 26% and 74% and the 10% is doing nothing.
26 plus 74 equals 100.

The Scheme offer they rejected was heavily in there long-term favor and would have increased there direct ownership via fully paid shares to 33.4%, however for whatever reason they wanted a 7.4% realized stake in the SA holdings company alone.
However BEE Group might want to be tied into the holdings company that is applying for future prospecting rights / expansion so they have fingers in further scaling and are aware of developments as opposed to a general shareholder.

There general voting rights of ordinary class fully paid shares in this listed company or "direct ownerships" that shareholders even want to know about is 26%.