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
Section 11 consent: Can the regulator breathe life into a void transaction?
by Kathleen Louw, Director 1. Section 11 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 ("the MPRDA") [...]
Resign First, Complain Later? The LAC Draws the Line on Constructive Dismissal
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director Constructive dismissal is not an escape route for employees who are dissatisfied with their working environment, [...]
Kusile Pollution: SCA Orders Eskom and Regulators to Act
by Jones Antunes, Director (Reviewer), and Tashlin Ramanundh, Candidate Attorney Environmental authorisations impose strict obligations which continue throughout the life [...]
AI and gambling, the regulatory gap is growing
by Wendy Rosenberg, Director and Head of Digital Media & Electronic Communications, and Tebogo Sibidla, Director Artificial intelligence (AI) is [...]
Blocking growth? Why the NCC’s Draft Opt-Out Registry Guidelines need revisiting | You were only given 15 days to comment – what are you doing?
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Regulatory, and Boitumelo Khwene, Candidate Attorney No one defends the spam caller. According [...]
Voting rights not afforded to post-commencement creditors
by Dr. Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of Insolvency & Business Rescue, Brandon Starr, Senior Associate, and Clio Patricios, Candidate [...]
