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
Proposed amendments to The Financial Intelligence Centre Act, 2001
by Tracy-Lee Janse van Rensburg, Director On 19 June 2020[1], the Minister of Finance published proposed amendments to Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the [...]
Guidance on outsourcing of compliance activities to third parties
by Tracy-Lee Janse van Rensburg, Director and Juliet Siwela, Candidate Attorney On 21 July 2020, the Financial Intelligence Centre ("FIC") published the [...]
Additional obligations for designated employers under The Employment Equity Act
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director A recent bill submitted to Parliament for consideration would seek to impose potentially stringent new quotas [...]
The effect of divorce and remarriage on a Will: SA and UK perspective
by Rachel Winterbach, Candidate Attorney reviewed by Doelie Lessing, Director This article compares the legal position that applies in the [...]
The deductibility of BBBEE expenditure – Binding Class Ruling 72
by Kyle Fyfe, Senior Associatereviewed by Ernest Mazansky, Head of Tax Practice SARS has recently issued Binding Class Ruling 72 [...]
SARS to get a new stick
by Kyle Fyfe, Senior Associatereviewed by Ernest Mazansky, Head of Tax Practice Section 34 of the draft Tax Administration Laws [...]
