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 PAIA and POPIA dichotomy: What information are you requesting?
Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000 We have received numerous queries from clients seeking advice on attending [...]
Security for costs – A White Elephant? A Chimera? Pie in the sky? …On any basis a Herculean task
Security for costs In the recent case of McHugh N.O. & Others v Wright [5641/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 205 (19 October [...]
Merger approval without a specific acquiring or target firm
Merger approval The Competition Act 89 of 1998 ("Competition Act") and Commission Rules[1] contain review provisions that establish a mandatory [...]
Data protection impact assessment required despite “Might of the State”
Kenyan High Court Introduction On 14 October 2021, the Kenyan High Court declared the collection of biometric information and the [...]
Your Actions in Cyberspace can Land You in Prison!
Cybercrimes Act, 19 of 2020 By proclamation in the Gazette, President Cyril Ramaphosa has fixed 1 December 2021 as the date [...]
Relief from oppressive or prejudicial conduct in terms of the Companies Act 71 of 2008
Section 163 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 In any corporate environment, the authority of the board of directors, [...]
