By Annet Kobusingye
In yet another significant setback for DFCU Bank, the High Court in London has rejected the bank’s application to amend its defence in the ongoing legal battle over the controversial takeover of Crane Bank Limited (CBL). The ruling marks a decisive victory for Dr. Sudhir Ruparelia and the former shareholders of CBL, reinforcing a string of legal wins both in Uganda and abroad.
The dispute stems from the October 2016 takeover of Crane Bank by the Bank of Uganda (BoU), which cited undercapitalization as justification. The central bank quickly sold CBL’s assets and liabilities to DFCU in a secretive transaction reportedly worth UGX 200 billion—a fraction of the bank’s estimated value.
Led by businessman Dr. Sudhir Ruparelia, CBL’s shareholders challenged the takeover and sale as illegal, unconstitutional, and fraudulent. In 2019, the High Court of Uganda dismissed BoU’s suit, a decision upheld by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Ugandan courts ruled that Crane Bank, while under receivership, lacked the legal standing to sue, and that BoU had overstepped its authority. These rulings cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of the sale and left DFCU legally exposed.
Having lost in Ugandan courts, DFCU turned to the UK in hopes of reviving its legal position. Central to its application was a forensic audit report allegedly authored by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), which DFCU claimed justified the BoU’s actions and its own acquisition of CBL.
But the London court dismissed the application outright, siding with CBL’s shareholders, who raised six key objections: the report was based on false allegations; it lacked authenticity, having been produced by an unlicensed local firm using the PWC name; it was inadmissible under Ugandan law; multiple conflicting versions existed; the report was incomplete and lacked supporting documentation; and the claimants had been denied access to crucial data, making it impossible to properly respond. The court upheld all objections, ruling the report unreliable and legally flawed. Consequently, DFCU’s attempt to amend its defence was rejected, and the bank was ordered to pay legal costs to the claimants.
The court also officially named Dr. Sudhir Ruparelia as the legal representative of the estate of the late Rajiv Ruparelia, allowing him to step into Rajiv’s role in the proceedings.
In a further blow to DFCU, the court declined to reserve hearing dates for October, citing incomplete filings. This delay effectively stalls DFCU’s momentum and suggests the court is in no hurry to fast-track their case.
The UK proceedings continue to spotlight serious concerns around DFCU’s role in the controversial acquisition. Why was the sale of a major bank conducted in secrecy, without competitive bidding? Why did DFCU acquire assets at a deep discount, yet later declare massive profits from the deal? Why were CBL’s shareholders denied access to their own bank data? Did DFCU blindly rely on a questionable report without due diligence? Has the cost of international litigation now become a burden for DFCU shareholders?
This latest ruling adds to DFCU’s growing list of legal failures in what appears to be an increasingly unsustainable defence. What started as a strategic attempt to gain ground in foreign courts now appears to be a costly miscalculation. With courts in both Uganda and the UK siding with CBL, Dr. Sudhir Ruparelia’s legal team remains undefeated—while DFCU is left to regroup, reassess, and absorb yet another courtroom loss.