For almost a decade after Bank of Uganda took control of Crane Bank, one of Uganda’s longest-running and most consequential banking disputes is entering perhaps its most critical phase yet: a 12-week trial before the Commercial Court in London, where allegations surrounding the bank’s takeover and subsequent sale to dfcu will finally face substantive examination.
On October 20, 2016, Bank of Uganda (BoU) took over the management of Crane Bank Limited (CBL), then one of Uganda’s largest indigenous commercial banks. Three months later, on January 24, 2017, BoU placed the lender into receivership, and on January 25, 2017, transferred most of its assets and liabilities to dfcu Bank in a transaction whose stated consideration was UGX200 billion, payable over two and a half years.
At the time, dfcu Bank was wholly owned by the Uganda Securities Exchange-listed dfcu Limited, whose two largest shareholders were Rabo Development B.V., the development-finance arm of the Netherlands’ Rabobank, and Norway-linked Norfinance AS, each with a 27.54% stake. Together, the two therefore controlled 55.08% of dfcu Limited. The UK’s CDC Group Plc held another 15%, Uganda’s National Social Security Fund (NSSF) 5.93%, while the remainder was held by other institutional and individual investors.
A few months after the Crane Bank transaction, Rabo Development and Norfinance transferred their respective dfcu stakes into Arise B.V., the financial-sector investment vehicle established by Rabobank, Norway’s Norfund and the Dutch development bank FMO, making Arise the controlling shareholder in dfcu Limited.
Almost exactly ten years later, the dispute over what happened to Crane Bank is heading into a courtroom more than 6,000 kilometres away.
The High Court of Justice’s Commercial Court in London has scheduled 12 weeks from October 2026 for the trial of Crane Bank Limited & Others v dfcu Bank Limited & Others, a sprawling case that has already generated thousands of pages of evidence and several important English court decisions.
The claimants are Crane Bank, businessman Dr Sudhir Ruparelia, Jyotsna Ruparelia, Meera Ruparelia, the estate of the late Rajiv Ruparelia, Tom Mugenga and Sheena Ruparelia.
The original proceedings name 15 defendants, including the corporate entities dfcu Bank Limited, dfcu Limited, CDC Group Plc, Norway’s Norfinance AS, Rabo Partnerships B.V. of the Netherlands and Arise B.V.
SOURCE: Ceo EastAfrica
The case also extends to several current and former executives and representatives associated with dfcu and its institutional shareholders. These include former dfcu executives Jimmy Mugerwa, Juma Kisaame and William Sekabembe, as well as Stephen Caley, Michael Alan Turner, Albert Jonkergouw, Willem Cramer, Ola Rinnan and Deepak Malik. The claims against the corporate and individual defendants remain allegations that are now set to be tested at trial.
FMO is not a defendant as it was not involved at the time.
A claim exceeding £170 million
At the heart of the proceedings is the claimants’ allegation that BoU officials and the defendants participated in a corrupt scheme surrounding the takeover and resolution of Crane Bank in 2016 and 2017.
They allege that Crane Bank had a strong balance sheet before the intervention and that concerns about its financial condition were improperly used to facilitate its takeover and the eventual transfer of most of its assets and liabilities to dfcu at what they describe as a gross undervalue.
The defendants dispute the allegations. dfcu’s position, recorded in subsequent Commercial Court judgments, is that Crane Bank had been mismanaged, was significantly undercapitalised, had liquidity problems and that central-bank intervention had become inevitable.
The claimants are seeking damages exceeding £170 million (presently UGX884 billion) together with other remedies, on claims including unlawful-means conspiracy, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt. The causes of action are governed by Ugandan law.
No English court has yet determined that the alleged corrupt scheme occurred. That distinction is particularly important: much of the litigation until now has concerned whether the English courts can hear the claims and how the eventual trial should be conducted, rather than determining the truth of the underlying allegations.
The case that almost ended before trial
The proceedings were commenced in England on 23 December 2020. dfcu, Mugerwa, Kisaame and Sekabembe subsequently challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts, relying principally on the foreign act of state doctrine — broadly, the principle limiting when English courts will adjudicate upon sovereign acts performed by foreign states within their own territory.
In October 2022, High Court Judge HH Judge Pelling KC agreed with them, holding that the claims would require an English court to adjudicate upon the lawfulness of executive acts of the Ugandan state. He therefore ruled that the English court had no jurisdiction to try those claims.
But in July 2023, a three-judge Court of Appeal comprising Sir Julian Flaux, Lord Justice Popplewell and Lord Justice Phillips overturned that decision, finding that there were serious issues to be tried concerning, among other matters, whether the commercial-activity and public-policy exceptions to the foreign act of state doctrine applied. The Court of Appeal also ordered dfcu to pay £700,000 — then approximately UGX2.8 billion — in legal costs arising from the appeal.
The defendants attempted to take the jurisdiction dispute to Britain’s highest court, but on 20 December 2023, the UK Supreme Court refused permission to appeal, leaving the Court of Appeal ruling standing.
Since then, the financial cost of the litigation has risen considerably. According to dfcu’s own disclosures, expenditure related to the London litigation increased from UGX42.3 billion in 2024 to UGX76.6 billion in 2025, meaning the case alone accounted for about 23% of dfcu Group’s total operating costs in 2025. dfcu has said it continues to engage Bank of Uganda, as the seller in the 2017 Crane Bank transaction, over possible redress of these costs.
The pressure became even more visible in the first half of 2026. dfcu swung from a UGX34.5 billion net profit in the first half of 2025 to a UGX15.8 billion net loss in the six months to June 2026 — a deterioration of about UGX50 billion. Operating expenses jumped 53% from UGX150.4 billion to UGX230 billion, even as operating income grew 8% to UGX215.6 billion. While the interim accounts did not separately disclose the amount spent on the Crane Bank case during the period, dfcu has attributed the elevated cost base substantially to the continuing London litigation.
Why the London trial matters
The significance of the coming 12 weeks therefore extends beyond whether Sudhir and the other claimants ultimately recover more than £170 million.
For the first time, many of the competing factual accounts surrounding one of the most controversial bank resolutions in Uganda’s history are expected to be tested together at a substantive trial.
The claimants will have to prove the allegations on which their causes of action depend. The defendants will have the opportunity to challenge that evidence.
Bank of Uganda is itself one of the defendants listed in the English proceedings.
But ten years after BoU took control of Crane Bank and almost six years after the London proceedings began, the dispute has survived a High Court jurisdictional defeat, a successful Court of Appeal challenge, an attempted appeal to the UK Supreme Court and years of disclosure and case-management battles.
Email:homelandnewspaper@gmail.com
