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
Payment of Prescribed Minimum Benefits
In the case of Keyhealth Medical Scheme v the Honourable Mr Justice SM Ngoepe N.O, the Registrar of Medical Schemes [...]
A double-edged sword: revenge porn and the Cybercrimes Act
Recently, South Africa has been experiencing a barrage of cyber-attacks and/or cyber-related/enabled crimes, with many individuals and organisations being caught [...]
When is CTC not available as CTC?: Part 2
In the September 2022 edition of Legal Weks we published an article titled "When is CTC not available as CTC" [...]
The test for merger specificity restated and endorsed
As part of the merger notification process, merging parties must disclose whether the merger will or even has caused job [...]
Half-baked challenge by employees dismissed for testing positive for cannabis at work
In a 2018 judgement by the Constitutional Court, the highest Court in the land effectively decriminalised the private use, cultivation [...]
Triumph for liquidators: Courts setting aside and declaring specious transactions void
by Tandiwe Matshebela, Director, Tebello Mosoeu, Associate, and Zoë Austen, Candidate Attorney Added to the liquidators' responsibility and duty to [...]
