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
Enhancing Innovation, Technologically
Continuing Werksmans' multi-disciplinary approach in providing our clients with innovative approaches that go beyond the law into wider, business [...]
The proper interpretation of conflicting provisions in the Income Tax Act
and Luke Magerman, Candidate Attorney A recent tax court judgment added valuable jurisprudence to the often-litigated issue of the interpretation [...]
What is the relevance of s 52 of the MPRDA on retrenchments in terms of section 189 and 189A in the mining industry?
In National Union of Mineworkers v Anglo American Platinum Ltd & others (Amplats), on 15 January 2013, Amplats had [...]
Mining terminology: the difference between “accepted”, “granted” “executed” and “registered”
Four of the most common words that one hears in conjunction with mining rights, prospecting rights are "accepted", "granted", [...]
Worried about the new EE Amendments? Progressive implementation of numerical targets is possible!
On 12 April 2023 the President signed the Employment Equity (EE) Amendment Bill, 2020 into law. The Act is [...]
An employer’s right to use replacement labour where a lockout has been instituted
and Nyeleti Baloyi, Candidate Attorney On 18 April 2023, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the interpretation of section 76(1)(b) of [...]
