Abstract:
This research assesses the effects of extinctive prescription on ordinary debts in terms of the Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11] of the Republic of Zimbabwe. The focus of this study is to generate a conceptualised conclusion, as guided under conceptual research, over whether internal mechanisms entrenched in the Prescription Act are sufficient to deal with the effects of prescription, which are both legal and factual. The effectiveness of these mechanisms is assessed in view of determining other alternative mechanisms that can be used to protect debts from extinctive prescription. This study establishes that debt security is paramount and the need to secure debt is the drive behind debt-collection litigation; as such mechanisms of protection should be able to secure the debt first and at least counter prescription. This research also tests he rationale of different time periods of extinctive prescription, in particular, the three years prescription period imposed on any other debt vis-á-vis long prescription periods imposed on debts owed to entities such as the State and banks, which have wider means of recovering debts. The assumption is that prescription is prejudicial to creditors, who for several justifiable reasons fail to claim debts within the stipulated period, and because prescription is in existence, debtors are manipulating prescription to their benefit. Hence, there ought to be other means of protection, that is if prescription cannot be abrogated in the least of it, and cession ought to be considered, but only if utilised strategically, together with other alternative mechanisms.
