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 Clock is Ticking on Unfair Labour Practice Referrals – Labour Court Confirms They Are One-Time Events
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director In the recent case of NEHAWU obo Makhubele & others v Ramalatso NO & others , the Labour [...]
Troubled waters and looming distress as we enter the second half of 2025
by Brendan Olivier, Director Much has been written and said about the dangers posed to South Africa’s economy, by outside [...]
No! It is NOT all about consent!
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director & Head of Regulatory “I believe that a guarantee of public access to government information is [...]
When a Withdrawal Doesn’t Really Withdraw: Provisional Liquidation is not Set Aside by Withdrawal
by Walid Brown, Director and Nombulelo Bashe, Associate Introduction We were recently reprimanded by an opponent for having the temerity [...]
AI-Hallucinated Case Law
Appellate court to trial judge: You know these cases are made up, right? by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of [...]
AI and the Data Privacy Elephant in the Room
“The real problem is not whether machines think, but whether men do.” – B.F. Skinner by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of [...]