Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Prescription of claims: on-demand loans
A loan which is repayable on demand becomes due the moment it is advanced to the debtor. Accordingly, such a debt will prescribe (or be extinguished) three years after the date on which the loan is advanced, unless prescription is interrupted by an acknowledgment of liability by the debtor or the service on the debtor of any process whereby the lender claims payment of the debt. This was the finding of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments (Pty) Ltd (1040/15) [2016] ZASCA 135 (29 September 2016), despite the fact that the loan agreement in question provided that the loan would only be “due and payable” within 30 days from the date of delivery of the lender’s written demand.
The court distinguished between when a debt is “claimable” (ie when it becomes due) and when it is “payable”. The fact that the debtor may be given 30 days following demand within which to repay the loan does not alter the principle that the loan becomes due the moment it is advanced and, therefore, prescription starts running from that date. In this case, the lender had demanded repayment of the loan more than three years after the loan was advanced and the court held that the debt had, by that time, already prescribed.
The court considered the proposition that, if the parties clearly indicate that they intend demand to be a condition precedent for the debt to become due, prescription will only begin to run from the date of demand. However, the court did not feel it was necessary to decide whether this proposition was correct as, in its view, it was far from clear that the parties in this case had such an intention.
Until the courts have provided clarity on whether (and on what terms) parties may agree that an on-demand loan will only become due (and prescription will therefore only commence running) once demand for repayment of the loan has been made, lenders would be well-advised to structure their lending arrangements and internal processes in such a way as to minimize the risk of an on-demand debt owing to them being inadvertently extinguished in circumstances similar to this case.
Click on the link if you’ like to more information on Werksmans expertise in the Banking & Finance sector.
Latest News
Constitutional Court clarifies rights of innocent contractors under invalid state contracts
by Sarah Moerane, Director and Kuhle Joja, Associate In Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Zeal Health Innovations (Pty) [...]
Untangling the mischief of section 43 of the Electronic Communications Act: A missed opportunity in the Amendment Bill
by Corlett Manaka, Director and Head of Disputes, Akhona Bilatyi, Director and Koketso Rapoo, Senior Associate On 12 March 2026, [...]
A charge by any other name would smell as sweet
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director The Labour Appeal Court's judgment in Machi v Chep SA (Pty) Ltd and Others serves as [...]
When a misdirected email becomes a data breach: The Information Regulator issues an enforcement notice on internal and accidental security compromises
by Armand Swart, Director, Hlonelwa Lutuli, Associate and Isabella Keeves, Candidate Attorney On 22 May 2026, South Africa’s Information Regulator [...]
Renting out your home? The Consumer Protection Act does not apply to you says Supreme Court of Appeal
In the judgment of Els v Venter and Another (449/2024) [2025] ZASCA 163 (27 October 2025), the Supreme Court of [...]
Bullies beware: When workplace toxicity becomes a dismissible offence
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director For many years, workplace bullying occupied an uncomfortable space in South African labour law. Employers recognised [...]
