District Court questions R1,800 wall-painting deduction but makes no express refund order
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
Neither party had photographs showing the wall at move-in. The judgment criticised the landlord’s lack of proof but left the tenant’s request for repayment without an express order.
Judgment by Matlock · Presiding judge · District Court
Plaintiff: Zanele Dube · Defendant: Peter Naidoo
The decision
The District Court criticised Peter Naidoo’s lack of proof for a disputed R1,800 painting deduction, but made no express order returning the money to tenant Zanele Dube. Presiding Judge Matlock’s judgment, signed on 14 October 2026, said the parties should agree on the wall’s prior condition.
Dube sought repayment of the amount withheld from her deposit. The dispute turned on whether the lounge wall’s marks were already present when she moved in or had become more extensive during her tenancy.
The court's reasons
The brief judgment began by observing that the parties appeared unable to agree on the facts. It then said Naidoo appeared to have gone too far in seeking to “extort the public without proof of the claims made”. The judgment did not explain that broader characterisation or make a separate finding concerning conduct towards anyone else.
Matlock said agreement on the wall’s prior condition would allow the parties to determine whether it required painting at all. The judgment did not expressly decide when the marks arose, whether Dube caused additional damage or whether Naidoo could retain the deduction.
The evidence discussed in court exposed a gap between proving a repainting expense and establishing responsibility for it: Naidoo acknowledged that his invoice showed what he paid, not when the marks arose. The formal judgment did not expressly assess that invoice or Dube’s reported WhatsApp exchange.
The parties' submissions
Dube said she took no arrival photographs but retained a WhatsApp conversation on her phone. According to her account, she reported existing grey scuffs on her third day and asked Naidoo to note them; he acknowledged the message.
Naidoo recalled a freshly painted wall before the tenancy and more extensive marks after Dube left. He accepted that he had no before photographs, could not compare images and regarded his memory as imperfect after the passage of time. He sought to keep R1,800 as reimbursement for repainting.
The background
Naidoo returned the balance of Dube’s deposit, and she did not dispute the remaining accounting. She also said she had obtained no signed record of the wall’s condition at the start of the tenancy.
The judgment leaves the financial outcome unresolved: it criticises the absence of proof and calls for agreement on the starting condition, without expressly granting or dismissing the repayment claim.