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
The rule of law remains paramount: Lessons from City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Summer Season Trading 63 (Pty) Ltd
by Bulelwa Mabasa, Director and Head of Land Reform and Samkelo Ntuli, Candidate Attorney The dispute in Summer Season Trading [...]
Mind the Conduct: A Guide to COFI – Part 4: Principles and Conduct Requirements
by Hilah Laskov, Director Introduction In this article series, we take a deep dive into the South African Conduct of [...]
The Concept of “Need” in South Africa’s Healthcare Framework: From Certificates of Need to National Health Insurance Accreditation
by Neil Kirby, Director and Head of Healthcare & Life Sciences and Vhutshilo Muambadzi, Candidate Attorney On 18 May 2026, the [...]
The Chief Restructuring Officer in South Africa in 2026: A real option for the turnaround of distressed entities
by Eric Levenstein, Head of Insolvency and Business Rescue As South African companies continue to suffer from an ailing economy, [...]
Business rescue recapitalisations upheld: the legal and commercial significance of White Rivers Exploration v Polsun
by Jonathan Stockwell, Director, Amy Mackechnie, Senior Associate and Clio Patricios, Candidate Attorney The Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, has delivered [...]
Leave to Appeal Refused, but Questions Remain: The Matric Results Privacy Dispute and the Meaning of Personal Information under POPIA
by: Armand Swart, Director and Isabella Keeves, Candidate Attorney On 3 June 2026, the Gauteng High Court refused the Information [...]
