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
Can an employer unilaterally impose short time on employees in circumstances of financial distress?
Independent Commercial Hospitality and Allied Workers Union and others v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and others (2015) 24 [...]
Employment Services Act
The Employment Services Act No. 4 of 2014 (“the Act“) comes into operation as from 9 August 2015. The purpose of the Act [...]
The meaning of a hearing DE NOVO in arbitration proceedings
Section 138 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 accords the commissioner’s discretion to determine the matter and form [...]
The provision of transport for employees working overtime beyond 18h00
Summary The performance of night work is regulated to, among others, avoid or minimise an employee’s health risks, including the [...]
Consequences of late/non-filing of employment equity reports
In terms of the EEA, designated employers are obliged to submit an Employment Equity Report (“EER”) to the Director-General of [...]
May an employer take on the right to alter a chairperson’s decision in a disciplinary hearing?
May an employer overturn the decision of a chairperson of a disciplinary hearing if it believes the chairperson’s sanction was [...]
