Contact
Dispute resolution | Prescription | Surety | Suretyship

Prescription and surety don’t always play well together

“Our company is owed money by one of our contractor companies who we helped with finance and provided us with personal sureties by the shareholders as security for the transaction. They have been making promises that they will pay for some time and we left it, but now we are getting worried about prescription. We are also unsure whether if we act against the sureties, prescription will be halted for the contractor or may continue and we lose our claim against the company itself. Can you advise?”

To answer your question, we must explain some of the terminology. 

“Prescription” is a legal principle in terms of which a debtor’s liability to pay an outstanding debt is extinguished after the passing of a prescribed time period. The Prescription Act 68 of 1969 establishes different time periods for different types of debt, with the most common debt, namely a debt arising from a delict (eg. damage caused to someone’s property) or contract (eg. breaching provisions of a contract that results in damage), prescribing three years after becoming due. This means that the debtor will not be liable to pay the debt if three years have passed since the debt became due.

However, the running of prescription can be interrupted by:

  • An acknowledgement of debt by the debtor; or
  • A summons issued and served by the creditor on the debtor in order to claim payment of the debt due.

A “surety” on the other hand is one who takes upon himself the obligation of the principal debtor to pay the debt where the principal debtor fails to settle the debt. By providing surety, persons like the shareholders in your situation, undertake to stand in for the principal debt should the principal debtor default on payment.

Our courts have recently had to consider whether the interruption in the running of prescription against one surety by service of summons, interrupted or delayed the running of prescription against the principal debtor or other sureties. 

In respect of co-debtors, it was confirmed that our common law allowed the judicial interruption of prescription of a co-debtor by the issuing of summon on another co-debtor. However, in respect of sureties, the court found that a surety does not become a co-debtor with the principal debtor, nor does he become a co-debtor with any of the co-sureties and co-principal debtors, unless they have specifically agreed to that effect.

This means that the institution of action against a surety and the interruption of prescription against that surety would therefore not result in the interruption of prescription against the principal debtor or even against the other sureties. This further means that you should be careful of prescription and not assume it will be halted if your act against a surety. If you are concerned about prescription ensure you consult with your attorney immediately and take the necessary steps timeously to recover the outstanding debt.

January 6, 2021
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , , ,

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , ,

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , ,

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest