Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd (12677/14) [2015] ZAWCHC 214 (5 November 2015)

Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd (12677/14) [2015] ZAWCHC 214 (5 November 2015)

The court found that there are reasonable prospects that a higher court could reach a different conclusion regarding the commencement of prescription in contracts where payment is payable on demand. The judge acknowledged divided legal opinion and policy considerations supporting both views. While the initial judgment upheld the defence of prescription, the judge was persuaded that the matter warrants further consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal, particularly regarding whether contractual stipulation can defer the running of prescription until demand is made.

Citation
[2015] ZAWCHC 214
Parties
Applicant: Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2015
Case Number
12677/14
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Provisional Winding Up Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole of the judgment handed down on 31 July 2015.
Judges
N J Yekiso
Legal Topics
Prescription, Loan Agreement, Provisional Winding Up, Payment on Demand
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Loan Agreement Provisional Winding Up Payment on Demand

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Provisional Winding Up Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of prescription was correctly upheld in the context of a loan agreement payable on demand.
  2. 2 Whether prescription begins to run from the date the creditor acquires the right to demand payment or from the date actual demand is made.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted given the divided legal opinion on prescription in such contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there are reasonable prospects that a higher court could reach a different conclusion regarding the commencement of prescription in contracts where payment is payable on demand. The judge acknowledged divided legal opinion and policy considerations supporting both views. While the initial judgment upheld the defence of prescription, the judge was persuaded that the matter warrants further consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal, particularly regarding whether contractual stipulation can defer the running of prescription until demand is made.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole of the judgment handed down on 31 July 2015.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole of the judgment handed down on 31 July 2015.
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal shall be costs in the appeal.