Nearly a decade after the Bank of Uganda seized Crane Bank and transferred its business to dfcu Bank, Ugandan billionaire Sudhir Ruparelia’s long-running fight has reached a critical phase in London’s High Court — and the spotlight has shifted firmly onto the Norwegian and Dutch-linked investors who backed the buyer.
The substantive trial of Crane Bank Limited & Others v dfcu Bank Limited & Others, which opened on 5 October 2026 in the Commercial Court, is expected to run for 12 to 16 weeks. Sudhir and other former shareholders are seeking at least €200 million (approximately Shs889 billion) in damages. They allege the 2016–2017 takeover and sale were part of an unlawful and corrupt scheme that stripped them of their investment at a gross undervalue.
Crane Bank, founded by Sudhir in 1995, grew into one of Uganda’s largest indigenous banks. The Bank of Uganda placed it under statutory management on 20 October 2016, citing capital and liquidity problems. In January 2017, selected assets and liabilities were transferred to dfcu under a purchase-of-assets and assumption-of-liabilities agreement for a stated consideration of Shs200 billion.
The claimants — Crane Bank itself, Sudhir, family members including Jyotsna and Meera Ruparelia, the estate of the late Rajiv Ruparelia, Sheena Ruparelia and former shareholder Tom Mugenga — argue the process was tainted. They claim dfcu and its backers, including Rabo Partnerships (a Rabobank subsidiary) and Norway’s Norfinance AS, benefited from a transaction that lacked an independent valuation and was arranged after the central bank approached dfcu early.
A particularly sharp allegation concerns an internal email from late 2016 indicating that $27.5 million (about Shs99 billion) from the sale of a portfolio of Crane Bank loans would go to the central bank without being properly recorded. The claimants characterise this as evidence of bribery. They also point to the earlier US conviction of Hong Kong intermediary Patrick Ho for bribing a Ugandan minister in connection with a Chinese conglomerate’s interest in the bank, after which dfcu is said to have entered the picture.
The defendants reject every allegation. dfcu maintains that Crane Bank was seriously undercapitalised, that the Bank of Uganda acted lawfully to protect depositors, and that the $27.5 million served a legitimate purpose in repaying emergency support. It has also said KPMG was involved in valuation work. Norfund (linked to Norfinance) has rejected the claims outright, while other parties, including the former Rabobank executives Albert Jonkergouw and Willem Cramer who sat on dfcu’s board, have declined substantive comment while the case is live.
The London proceedings follow a string of victories for Sudhir in Ugandan courts against the Bank of Uganda. They also sit against the backdrop of the 2019 COSASE parliamentary inquiry, chaired by Abdu Katuntu, which criticised the central bank for breaking the law on several points in the Crane Bank resolution.
What gives the story fresh urgency in Kampala is the parallel dispute now before Parliament. On 10 November 2026, Bank of Uganda Governor Michael Atingi-Ego told COSASE that Shs219.4 billion in liquidity support remains recoverable from Crane Bank and its former shareholders. Sudhir has rejected the demand outright, arguing that once the central bank took control on 20 October 2016, suspended the board and installed its own statutory manager, the former shareholders lost control and cannot be held personally liable. He has invoked the principle of limited liability.
The Governor has warned MPs that open discussion of the liquidity support could prejudice the ongoing London trial, since the central bank’s actions are central to the foreign case. He has asked the committee to defer substantive questioning or handle sensitive matters in closed session.
For Sudhir, who has told Norwegian media that the case is about more than money and is meant to make powerful institutions “think twice,” the London trial represents the fullest examination yet of the allegations. Top international firms are involved: Greenberg Traurig for the claimants, Freshfields for dfcu, and others for the foreign investors.
The outcome will not only determine whether damages are awarded; it will also test how English courts treat claims involving Uganda’s bank resolution process and the role of development-finance-linked investors. In the meantime, the simultaneous pressure in Parliament and the Royal Courts of Justice has turned a decade-old banking dispute into one of the most closely watched accountability stories in Uganda.
The post London Trial Puts Dutch and Norwegian Investors in the Spotlight as Sudhir Seeks Shs889bn Over Alleged Corrupt Crane Bank Sale appeared first on Watchdog Uganda.