Nearly a decade after the Bank of Uganda placed Crane Bank Limited under statutory management, a major commercial trial is under way in London’s High Court. The proceedings, Crane Bank Limited & Others v dfcu Bank Limited & Others, involve claims by the bank and its former shareholders—including Dr Sudhir Ruparelia and members of his family—seeking substantial damages over the 2016–2017 intervention and the subsequent transfer of selected assets and liabilities to dfcu Bank. The case has reached this stage only after years of litigation in Uganda and a hard-fought jurisdictional battle in the English courts.
In October 2016, the Bank of Uganda took control of Crane Bank, citing capital and liquidity concerns. In January 2017, most of the bank’s assets and liabilities were transferred to dfcu under a purchase-of-assets and assumption-of-liabilities arrangement. The stated consideration was approximately Shs200 billion. The claimants allege that the process was unlawful, that the bank was transferred at a significant undervalue, and that the transaction formed part of a corrupt scheme involving officials of the Bank of Uganda and parties connected to the acquirers. The defendants reject these allegations and maintain that the intervention was justified by the bank’s financial condition.
In Uganda, related litigation produced a series of outcomes favourable to Sudhir Ruparelia and Meera Investments. Courts, including the Supreme Court, held that Crane Bank in receivership lacked locus standi in certain claims brought against the shareholders and that the receivership had ended. The central bank’s attempts to place the entity into liquidation were also restrained. These rulings effectively returned control of the formal Crane Bank entity to its shareholders. However, those Ugandan cases largely addressed standing, the status of the receivership, and related property or procedural issues. They did not fully resolve claims for damages against the international parties involved in the transfer or determine the underlying allegations of conspiracy and undervaluation.
The London action was commenced in December 2020. The claimants are Crane Bank Limited itself, Dr Sudhir Ruparelia, Jyotsna Ruparelia, Meera Ruparelia, the estate of the late Rajiv Ruparelia, Sheena Ruparelia and another former shareholder. The defendants include dfcu Bank, its parent company, former executives, and international entities such as Norway’s Norfinance AS and Dutch-linked Rabo Partnerships B.V., along with other institutional shareholders and individuals associated with the transaction. The claims—primarily for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt—are governed by Ugandan law but were brought in England. One practical reason is that several defendants are foreign entities over which the English Commercial Court has jurisdiction under the relevant procedural gateways for service out of the jurisdiction.
The main obstacle was the foreign act of state doctrine. This principle generally prevents English courts from adjudicating the lawfulness of executive acts of a foreign state performed within its own territory under its own law. In October 2022, a High Court judge held that the claims required the court to examine the lawfulness of Bank of Uganda’s regulatory and receivership actions and therefore fell within the doctrine. Jurisdiction was declined and service was set aside.
The claimants appealed. In July 2023, the Court of Appeal (Crane Bank Ltd & Ors v DFCU Bank Ltd & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 886) overturned the decision. Sir Julian Flaux, Lord Justice Popplewell and Lord Justice Phillips held that there were serious issues to be tried as to whether exceptions to the foreign act of state rule applied. In particular, they found it arguable that the sale of the assets by the Bank of Uganda as receiver was a commercial activity rather than a pure sovereign act, and that English public policy against bribery and corruption—reflected in domestic legislation and international obligations—could place the alleged scheme outside the protection of the doctrine. The UK Supreme Court later refused permission to appeal, leaving the Court of Appeal’s ruling in place.
As a result, the case has proceeded to a full trial in the Commercial Court, scheduled for approximately 12 to 16 weeks from October 2026. The hearing will examine the competing accounts of the bank’s financial position, the process of the intervention and transfer, and the role of the various defendants. No English court has yet determined the truth of the underlying allegations; the earlier stages were confined to jurisdiction and procedural matters.
In short, the London proceedings exist because the claimants are pursuing damages against a mix of Ugandan and foreign defendants on causes of action that English courts have ruled can, at least at this stage, be heard despite the foreign act of state doctrine. The Ugandan litigation addressed different legal questions and did not exhaust claims against the international parties connected to the 2017 transfer. The current trial therefore represents the first substantive examination of those specific allegations in a forum that has jurisdiction over all the relevant defendants.
The outcome remains to be decided on the evidence. Until judgment is delivered, the claims and the defendants’ denials stand as contested positions in one of the largest commercial disputes arising from Uganda’s banking sector to reach an English courtroom.
The post Why the Crane Bank Case Is Being Heard in London After Years of Ugandan Litigation appeared first on Watchdog Uganda.