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
Proposed Economic Opportunity Tax for Casino Operator Licensees in the Western Cape to relocate their casinos
by Wendy Rosenberg, Director and Head of Digital Media & Electronic Communications On 6 June 2025, the draft Western Cape [...]
When does an acquisition by a company of its own shares constitute a scheme of arrangement?
Understanding the relationship between Section 48 and Section 114 of the Companies Act in Light of the Companies Amendment Act, [...]
Are we seeing an end to the appointment of board members to act as CEOs of SOEs / Private Companies?
by Sandile July, Director and Head of Employment and Nonkosazana Nkosi, Director 1. The Labour Court has officially put a [...]
Alexkor Soc Limited and Another v Carstens (JA7/24) [2025] ZALAC 28 (15 May 2025)
by Bankey Sono, Director and Neo Sewela, Senior Associate 1. Does the Labour Court have the power to declare a [...]
Business Rescue Is Not a Shield from Accountability: Director and Business Rescue Practitioner Held Liable
By Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of Insolvency and Business Resue and Amy Mackechnie, Senior Associate The recent decision in [...]
The Age of AI and Employment: Navigating Legal and Strategic Implications for Employers
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director and Preeta Bhagattjee, Head of Technology & Innovation Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a speculative [...]