Justice Paul Stanley, delivering judgment in case [2025] EWHC 1915 (Comm), emphasized that DFCU’s reliance on the PwC report was misguided and legally impermissible without proper cross-examination.
The legal battle between Crane Bank Limited and DFCU Bank has taken a dramatic and decisive turn in London, where the High Court of England and Wales has struck a major blow to DFCU’s legal strategy in a ruling that could redefine the 2017 bank takeover saga.
Notably, the court refused to admit key evidence presented by DFCU Bank, specifically a forensic audit conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), as it was deemed unreliable, unverified, and unfit to be treated as factual evidence in a fair trial.
Justice Paul Stanley, delivering judgment in case [2025] EWHC 1915 (Comm), emphasized that DFCU’s reliance on the PwC report was misguided and legally impermissible without proper cross-examination.
He noted, “The findings in the report, if accurate, point to management practices inconsistent with what any sensible regulator would wish to see operating a strategically important bank,” but made clear that such findings cannot be accepted at face value. He ruled that the conclusions of PwC—commissioned by the Bank of Uganda following its dramatic seizure of Crane Bank—were not independently verifiable and carried the risk of prejudicing the proceedings.
This ruling has shaken the foundation of DFCU’s long-held defense. Since the 2017 transaction, in which DFCU acquired Crane Bank’s assets at a price described by critics as a “giveaway price,” the bank has consistently cited the PwC audit to justify the takeover. That narrative has now suffered a fatal wound. For Crane Bank and its former majority shareholder, businessman Sudhir Ruparelia, the court’s position represents vindication after nearly a decade of fighting what they describe as a politically motivated and economically reckless expropriation.
Crane Bank was once the crown jewel of Uganda’s indigenous banking sector—well-capitalized, expansive, and widely trusted by local customers. Its abrupt closure under the watch of the Bank of Uganda sent tremors throughout the financial system and led to accusations of regulatory overreach, conflicts of interest, and state-sponsored favoritism. The sale to DFCU, reportedly for Shs200 billion, was completed without shareholder consultation or open competitive bidding, sparking claims of a pre-arranged backdoor deal.
Over the years, Sudhir and his legal team have argued that the entire transaction was engineered under pretenses and enabled by a flawed regulatory process. The PwC audit, it turns out, was central to this narrative, yet it has now been rendered legally irrelevant in one of the world’s most credible courtrooms. Compounding this revelation, it was also established that PwC Uganda, the entity behind the audit, was not even an internationally accredited member of PwC Global at the time and had deep entanglements with key actors in the case.
The UK court ruling also hints at the broader institutional failure that enabled the takeover. It opens the door for Crane Bank to pursue not just legal restitution, but reputational repair and possibly financial compensation. Legal analysts point out that the invalidation of the audit as factual evidence undermines the very basis upon which the Bank of Uganda justified the handover. The judgment has therefore shifted momentum squarely in favor of Crane Bank, dismantling DFCU’s shield and exposing it to intensified scrutiny.
Although the court did approve DFCU’s request to access Sudhir Ruparelia’s mobile phone and his daughter Sheena Ruparelia’s private email account for purposes of discovery, this gain is seen as marginal compared to the strategic blow suffered by the disqualification of the PwC report. The ruling draws a clear line between fair judicial standards and unchecked regulatory power, setting a powerful precedent for similar cases involving disputed corporate takeovers in politically volatile environments.
For DFCU Bank, what once appeared to be a calculated expansion now looks more like an acquisition mired in scandal. The loss of a cornerstone piece of evidence will likely force the bank to re-evaluate its entire litigation posture ahead of the 12-week trial set to begin in October 2026. In the meantime, public confidence in both DFCU and the regulatory bodies involved continues to erode, with observers calling for a full accounting of how a once-thriving bank was dismantled and handed over under questionable circumstances.
The judgment has also reignited conversations around Uganda’s financial governance, especially the reliance on foreign consultants to legitimize domestic actions. It underscores the importance of due process, transparency, and the dangers of regulatory capture. The fact that a UK court is now taking the lead in disentangling what many saw as a locally contained financial scandal speaks volumes about the trust deficit within Ugandan institutions.
As the case proceeds toward full trial, what’s at stake is no longer just the fate of Crane Bank or DFCU’s liability—it is the credibility of Uganda’s banking oversight, the role of foreign forensic consultants in regulatory decision-making, and the limits of executive influence in financial markets. What began as a domestic banking dispute has now escalated into an international test of justice, corporate accountability, and economic sovereignty.
The 2017 acquisition may yet prove to be one of the most legally and ethically contested financial transactions in East African history. And with DFCU Bank’s most powerful piece of evidence now dismantled, the tables may have finally turned in favor of Crane Bank and Sudhir Ruparelia.
Genesis of the saga
The saga between Crane Bank and DFCU Bank dates back to October 2016, when the Bank of Uganda announced it had taken over Crane Bank Limited, citing undercapitalization and failure to meet statutory requirements. Crane Bank, then one of Uganda’s largest and most successful indigenous banks, was placed under statutory management, triggering alarm across the financial sector and laying the groundwork for a series of highly controversial events.
Founded in 1995 by businessman Sudhir Ruparelia, Crane Bank had risen through the ranks to become a key player in Uganda’s banking industry. It boasted over 45 branches across the country, a strong customer base, a robust balance sheet, and consistently profitable performance. By 2015, the bank’s total assets had reached Shs1.8 trillion, and it was widely seen as a symbol of local entrepreneurial success. Its audited accounts had regularly received clean reports, most notably from KPMG, one of the global Big Four audit firms.
But on October 20, 2016, the Bank of Uganda issued a stunning announcement: Crane Bank had become “significantly undercapitalized” and was being taken over by the central bank. Just three months later, in January 2017, the Bank of Uganda announced that DFCU Bank had acquired certain assets and liabilities of Crane Bank. The acquisition was done quietly without public bidding, transparency, or parliamentary oversight. The sale, executed under the Financial Institutions Act, was concluded at an alleged gross undervaluation, raising eyebrows across the banking and legal fraternity.
What followed was a cascade of accusations, counter-accusations, and legal battles. The Bank of Uganda relied heavily on a forensic audit report conducted by PwC Uganda to justify the takeover. The report accused Crane Bank’s management of insider lending, governance failures, and financial irregularities. But Sudhir Ruparelia and Meera Investments, the majority shareholders dismissed the report as flawed, unverified and fundamentally biased. They claimed the BoU had orchestrated a rushed, irregular and politically motivated expropriation of their bank under the guise of regulatory enforcement.
The shareholders of Crane Bank filed multiple suits in the Ugandan courts, and 2019, the Supreme Court delivered a pivotal ruling. The court held that Crane Bank (in receivership) could not sue its former owners, effectively dismissing BoU’s Shs397 billion case against Sudhir. The ruling severely weakened the central bank’s position and raised serious questions about the legal procedures followed during the acquisition process. Having suffered a domestic legal setback, attention turned to international litigation.
In December 2020, Crane Bank Limited and its shareholders filed a suit against DFCU Bank in the High Court of Justice in London, alleging that the 2017 acquisition had been unlawful and constituted a conspiracy to expropriate their assets. The case, widely followed across East Africa, accused DFCU of colluding with BoU to take over Crane Bank through an illegitimate process. It also challenged the use of the PwC audit as a factual foundation for the acquisition.
