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 54 – Still a Bar to the Commencement of Mining Activity?
On 5 December 2018, Werksmans published an article on the Constitutional Court Judgment: CCT 265/17 Maledu v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral [...]
When Three Legal Planets Align… WhatsApp Must Pay a $220 000 000.00 Fine
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission ("Commission"), being the foremost agency in Nigeria, responsible for the promotion, protection, and [...]
Waive Goodbye to Uncertainty: Phoenix Salt Industries (Pty) Ltd v The Lubavitch Foundation of Southern Africa
and Laeeqah Kassiem, Candidate Attorney This article discusses the judgement of Phoenix Salt Industries (Pty) Ltd v The Lubavitch Foundation [...]
Mr. Pty Ltd, You Have a Right to Privacy!
When thinking about the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 ("POPIA") individuals often, mistakenly so, think about the [...]
Do Androids Dream of Unfair Dismissal?
A federal judge in California recently considered an employment discrimination claim that involved AI. Even though it considered specific circumstances [...]
The Construction Climate Forecast: Stormy Seas Ahead
First introduced to Parliament in February 2022, the Climate Change Bill was passed by the National Assembly in October 2023 [...]