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 meaning of the term ‘pay back’ in a settlement agreement
Genrec Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others [2016] ZALCJHB 213 (17 June 2016) ISSUE [...]
The impact of Mitchell judgement on purchases of immovable property from an insolvent estate
In a recent judgement, of City Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v PJ Mitchell (38/2015) (2015) ZASCA, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that [...]
Tread carefully when merging: tribunal imposes massive fine for failure to notify
In the intricate process of acquiring another business or forming a joint venture, firms often forget to check whether the [...]
The duty to disclose business rescue proceedings
On 14 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) in the matter of Umso Construction Proprietary Limited (“Umso”) v MEC [...]
Spotlight on boards and shareholder activism
INTRODUCTION Corporate activism places public pressure on boards to improve both financial and non-financial performance of companies. Non-financial performance [...]
New treatment of fractional entitlements in terms of the JSE listings requirements
A recent change to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) Listings Requirements, which deals with the manner in which entitlements to [...]
