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
Urgency misconceived: A cautionary note on process, principle and professional responsibility
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director The decision in Wheatley v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others (2026) 47 ILJ [...]
Digital taxes are reshaping cross-border e-commerce economics in Africa
by Tebogo Sibidla, Director Digital taxation has moved from policy debate to regulatory reality. Governments across the world are implementing [...]
A safe voice or silent risk: An attempt at reforming whistleblower protection through the Protected Disclosures Draft Bill
by Harold Jacobs, Director, Luyanda Lebepe, Senior Associate and Kian Steytler, Candidate Attorney The case of Babita Deokaran, a senior [...]
Recent Competition Tribunal Case clarifies approach to ownership conditions in South African merger approvals
by Pieter Steyn, Director In a recent case, the Competition Tribunal clarified its approach regarding the imposition of conditions for [...]
Proposed New Capital Flow Management Regulations fail to live up to expectations
by Kyle Fyfe, Director On 17 April 2026, National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank published the long awaited [...]
Understanding the 1 May 2026 BCEA Earnings Threshold Adjustment: Implications for employers and employees
by Banky Sono, Director, Dakalo Singo, Head of Pro Bono, Neo Sewela, Director and Sandile Mogweng, Candidate Attorney The Minister [...]
