By Spy Uganda
Businessman Dr Sudhir Ruparelia and other former shareholders are taking their long-running legal battle over the Crane Bank’s takeover to one of the world’s most closely watched commercial courts.
The 16-week trial, which opens Monday, October 5, 2026, at the High Court of Justice in London, is set to examine a complex dispute arising from the 2016 takeover of Crane Bank and the subsequent transfer of its assets and liabilities to DFCU Bank.
The case, Crane Bank Limited & Ors v DFCU Bank Limited & Ors, filed under Claim No. CL-2020-000859, brings together allegations of corruption, unlawful conduct and conspiracy, alongside difficult questions about the extent to which English courts can examine decisions taken by foreign state institutions.
At the centre of the proceedings is Dr Sudhir Ruparelia, the founder and former principal shareholder of Crane Bank, who, together with other claimants, is seeking to challenge what they contend was an unlawful process surrounding the collapse and eventual transfer of the bank.
The London proceedings therefore represent a significant new chapter in the Crane Bank saga and potentially provide the claimants with an opportunity to put their case before an international commercial court through extensive documentary evidence, expert testimony and legal argument.
The dispute dates back to October 2016, when the Bank of Uganda placed Crane Bank under statutory management, citing severe undercapitalisation.
In January 2017, the central bank placed the bank into receivership before arrangements were subsequently made for most of Crane Bank’s assets and liabilities to be transferred to DFCU Bank.
Dr Ruparelia and the other claimants dispute aspects of the process and allege that the takeover was connected to a wider scheme involving unlawful conduct and corruption.
DFCU and the other defendants have maintained that the acquisition was lawful and have rejected the allegations made against them.
DFCU has also pointed to the role of PricewaterhouseCoopers in the process and argues, among other things, that the claimants did not challenge the administration of Crane Bank through the Ugandan courts at the time.
With seven claimants and 15 defendants involved, the case is expected to be highly technical and document-heavy.
The claimants include Crane Bank Limited, Dr Sudhir Ruparelia, Jyotsna Ruparelia, Meera Ruparelia, the estate of the late Rajiv Ruparelia, Tom Mugenga and Sheena Ruparelia.
The defendants include DFCU Bank Limited, DFCU Limited, former DFCU executives, British International Investment, Norfinance, Rabo Partnerships, Arise and several individuals associated with the institutions involved.
The court is expected to examine a substantial body of evidence, including internal correspondence, presentations, transaction documents and other records connected to the takeover.
One of the most significant features of the case is that the Bank of Uganda is not itself a defendant.
The absence of the central bank is linked to principles including state immunity and the foreign act of state doctrine, creating a complex legal question for the English court.
The claimants argue that the circumstances surrounding the takeover cannot properly be understood without examining decisions made during the regulatory process.
The defendants, meanwhile, are expected to rely on the fact that the central bank is not a party to the proceedings and to defend the legality of the transactions in which they were involved.
The English Court of Appeal in 2023 allowed the claims to proceed past the jurisdictional stage, finding that the foreign act of state doctrine did not prevent the case from being heard at that point.
The claimants are expected to rely, among other material, on findings from a 2019 Ugandan parliamentary inquiry which criticised aspects of the handling of Crane Bank’s takeover and raised questions about the legality of some actions taken by the central bank.
They also point to the conviction in the United States of Hong Kong businessman Patrick Ho in a separate bribery case involving Uganda’s then Foreign Minister.
The relevance and weight of such evidence will ultimately be matters for the London court to determine.
For Dr Ruparelia, the London proceedings mark a major moment in a dispute that has followed the collapse of Crane Bank for nearly a decade.
Crane Bank was once one of Uganda’s largest indigenous commercial banks, and its collapse and subsequent transfer to DFCU generated significant public debate over the treatment of locally owned financial institutions and the powers exercised by regulators.
The London case now places some of those contentious events before an international judicial forum.
The proceedings are being watched closely because of the potential implications for commercial law, banking regulation and cross-border disputes involving state institutions and private investors.
Greenberg Traurig represents the claimants, while Freshfields represents DFCU. A&O Shearman represents Arise, while Milbank represents Rabobank.
The trial is expected to run for approximately 16 weeks, with judgment to be delivered at a later date.
For Dr Sudhir Ruparelia and the other Crane Bank claimants, the opening of the trial represents a significant milestone: after years of legal battles, investigations and public debate, the evidence surrounding one of Uganda’s most controversial banking episodes is now set to receive sustained scrutiny before the High Court in London.
