By Spy Uganda
Kampala: Following Justice David Wangutusi’s 2019 ruling, in which he declared that BoU illegally wound up defunct Crane Bank and sold it to DFCU bank under dubious circumstances, BoU Governor prof. Tumusiime Mutebile was left unsatisfied hence pushing matters to Supreme Court which last week trashed his appeal with huge costs to famous business mogul Sudhir Ruparelia.
After losing the case, despite the court’s stringent orders, BoU issued a public notice citing liquidating the same bank.
This was after Justice Paul Mugamba, had determined that the Receivership of Crane Bank (U) Limited ended on the 20th day of January 2018 hence no way the same bank could be liquidated meaning BoU’s panicky moves were totally illegal and an indicator of contempt of court.
Justice Mugamba further aired a strong warning to Mutebile and his staff plus other relevant stakeholders that Crane Bank Limited is no longer in Receivership, the BoU no longer has any legal authority over the affairs of Crane Bank, and the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Crane Bank are back in full control over the company and its affairs and are the only organs of the company with legal authority over its affairs.
“We are therefore writing to notify your office and any other person to whom it may concern at the Companies Registry that by Order of the Court in the above appeal, it follows that:
1. Crane Bank Limited is no longer in Receivership.
2.The Bank of Uganda no longer has any legal authority over the affairs of Crane Bank Limited.
3.The Board of Directors and Shareholders of Crane Bank Limited are back in full control over the Company and its affairs and are the only organs of the Company with legal authority over its affairs,” Justice Mugamba partially ordered in his November 9, 2020 ruling.
He added that the decree from the Court of Appeal that was signed by counsel for both parties, expressed that the applicant’s receivership ended on 20th January 2018, hence dismissing the appeal and ordered that the Bank of Uganda was to pay costs to court there in below;
For an application for an interim order, it suffices that substantive application is pending and that there is s threat of execution before the hearing of the pend substantive application.
“In my judgment, therefore, I find no evidence of any imminent threat of execution upon which this court can base the exercise of its discretion to grant this application. (underlining for emphasis) In the premises, I do not see the above letter written by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent concerning the substance of the decree to be a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the pending substantive application,” he said.
Thereafter, Justice Mugamba revealed that in the matter, there was no evidence upon which to base the exercise of the court’s discretion to grant the orders thought by the applicant [BoU] hence dismissing the case and ordered Bank Of Uganda to cough billions of money to mogul Sudhir for disturbing his peaceful life with unlimited useless court battles.
Mugamba ruled, “In this matter, there is no evidence upon which to base the exercise of the court’s discretion to grant the orders thought by the applicant, Consequently I dismiss this case with costs to respondents.”