Uganda’s city tycoon Sudhir Ruparelia is seeking more than £300 million, equivalent to Shs1.58 trillion, in damages from Norwegian investment company Norfinance and other parties over the takeover and subsequent sale of Crane Bank.
The case is set to surface before the London High Court on Monday.
The lawsuit, which has taken nearly a ten years to reach trial, centres on the circumstances surrounding the Bank of Uganda’s takeover of Crane Bank in 2016 and the eventual sale of its banking operations to DFCU.
Ruparelia and his family, who were the principal owners of Crane Bank, contend that the bank was unlawfully deprived of its business through a scheme involving several parties. The defendants have rejected most of the allegations and maintain that Crane Bank was not financially sound when the central bank intervened.
The trial is expected to last several months, with the case involving extensive evidence about Crane Bank’s financial condition, regulatory decisions taken before its takeover and the circumstances under which its banking operations were transferred to DFCU.
Ruparelia, who is described in the report as one of Uganda’s richest men, built Crane Bank into one of the country’s major commercial banks. By 2015, the bank had 46 branches in Uganda, a small operation in Rwanda and more than 600,000 customers.
His wider business empire also expanded into real estate, media, insurance and other sectors after he returned to Uganda in 1985 following years in London during the regime of former president Idi Amin.
The dispute that ultimately led to the London case, however, emerged during a difficult period for Uganda’s banking sector.
In 2015 and 2016, inflation and interest rates were high, while the Bank of Uganda tightened its supervision of financial institutions. The interpretation of the regulator’s actions during this period is expected to be one of the most important issues before the London court.
Crane Bank was placed under the administration of the Bank of Uganda in 2016 before its banking operations were eventually sold to DFCU.
Ruparelia’s side argues that the bank had been deliberately weakened before the takeover and alleges that a number of decisions, including changes to capital requirements, assessments of lending limits and investigations, worked against the bank.
The plaintiffs further allege that the ultimate objective was to make Crane Bank available for takeover by other interests.
According to the report, a Chinese conglomerate, CEFC China Energy, had been seeking to gain control of a bank in Uganda as part of its expansion plans in the region. The plaintiffs allege that instead of establishing a new banking operation, interests linked to the Chinese company sought control of Crane Bank.
The case also refers to allegations that money was paid illegally to influence events surrounding the bank.
The allegations are particularly significant because they are connected to the corruption case involving Chinese businessman Chi Ping Patrick Ho, who was acting on behalf of CEFC China Energy.
Ho was convicted in the United States in 2018 in a bribery case connected to the wider Crane Bank saga and was sentenced to prison in 2019. The report says the bribe was intended for Uganda’s then Foreign Minister.
Ruparelia’s lawyers argue that the Chinese plan did not proceed as expected after US authorities began scrutinising the corruption allegations and Ho was subsequently prosecuted and imprisoned.
The plaintiffs allege that the parties involved then had to find another route through which the banking operations could be transferred.
DFCU eventually took over the banking operations of Crane Bank, a transaction that Ruparelia’s side now challenges in the London proceedings.
The plaintiffs argue that the price at which DFCU acquired the business was so low that it should have raised questions among those involved in the transaction.
“Crane Bank lost several hundred million dollars,” Ruparelia said when asked to summarise the transaction and its impact on the bank.
The lawsuit has been brought against companies and individuals connected to the takeover and ownership of DFCU, including South African firm Arise and Norwegian company Norfinance.
According to the report, DFCU is 59 percent owned by Arise, whose founder and principal shareholder is Norway’s government-owned investment fund, Norfund.
Norfinance is also among the shareholders, alongside FMO and Rabobank.
Norfund was established by Norway’s Parliament in 1997 as the country’s investment fund for business activities in developing countries.
The plaintiffs accuse the new owners and other parties involved in the transaction of taking over Crane Bank’s banking operations on an unlawful basis.
Norfinance is described in the case as being majority-owned by Norfund and having no independent day-to-day management.
However, Norfund itself is not a defendant in the lawsuit.
Norfund has distanced itself from the allegations while acknowledging that it is affected by the case because of its ownership interests in Norfinance and Arise.
“Norfund is not a party to the case, but is affected as a co-owner of Norfinance and Arise. Norfinance and Arise reject all the allegations and will defend themselves against them in court,” Per Kristian Sbertoli, Norfund’s Director of Public Relations, said.
Sbertoli also said the case was being heard in the United Kingdom, where parties to an ongoing trial are subject to strict rules governing public statements.
“We therefore cannot comment on the case until it has been resolved,” he said.
One of the reasons the dispute has taken almost a decade to reach court was the question of who had the legal right to sue over the takeover.
Although the banking operations had been sold, the Bank of Uganda retained control of the formal Crane Bank entity for several years, preventing the company from bringing a lawsuit.
The Ruparelia family later prevailed in Uganda’s Supreme Court and regained control of Crane Bank.
As a result, Crane Bank is now the principal plaintiff in the London proceedings, alongside members of the Ruparelia family.
The London proceedings will therefore examine not only the events surrounding the 2016 takeover but also the legal and financial circumstances that followed the sale of the bank’s operations.
The case will involve detailed arguments over whether Crane Bank was financially sound at the time of the Bank of Uganda intervention and whether the regulatory actions taken against it were justified.
The defendants have challenged the plaintiffs’ account, arguing that Crane Bank was not sound and that its placement under government administration was based on legitimate reasons.
According to the report, only a limited number of factual details are undisputed, while the parties disagree on many of the key events and their interpretation.
Although the lawsuit involves a claim of more than £300 million, Ruparelia says the dispute is about more than recovering the money he believes was lost through the collapse and sale of Crane Bank.
He has also criticised the involvement of foreign development finance institutions in African business disputes and called for greater caution when such institutions participate in transactions involving local companies.
“This case is about more than just the lost funds. The Bank of Uganda and other institutions involved must think twice before attempting anything like this again. Foreign development funds that invest in Africa should not get involved in criminal activity,” Ruparelia said.
The claim of more than £300 million translates to approximately Shs1.58 trillion at the 3 October 2026 exchange rate of about Shs5,275 for one British pound.
The case is expected to last several months and could become one of the most closely watched commercial disputes involving a Ugandan businessman and foreign investment institutions in the London courts.
For Ruparelia, the proceedings represent the latest stage in a long-running effort to challenge what happened to Crane Bank after the Bank of Uganda takeover in 2016.
Asked whether the London proceedings would finally bring the long dispute to an end or whether further appeals could follow, Ruparelia said his side remained confident while acknowledging that the final decision rests with the court.
“The plaintiffs are confident that we will prevail, but ultimately it is the court that will decide this,” Ruparelia said.
The London High Court is now set to hear the evidence from both sides and determine whether the allegations made by Crane Bank and the Ruparelia family are established and whether the defendants are liable for the damages being claimed.
