KAMPALA, Uganda — Nearly a decade after Bank of Uganda (BoU) placed Crane Bank under statutory management, the controversial collapse of the once-prominent lender is back in the international spotlight, with a long-running legal dispute in the United Kingdom moving towards a substantive trial.
The case, filed by Crane Bank and several members of the Ruparelia family against dfcu Bank, dfcu Limited and other individuals and institutions, centres on the circumstances surrounding the takeover of Crane Bank in 2016 and the subsequent transfer of some of its assets and liabilities to dfcu Bank in January 2017.
The claimants are seeking damages of more than £170 million (about Shs800 billion), alleging that the transaction was the result of an unlawful scheme that caused Crane Bank to be transferred at a substantial undervalue. The allegations are denied by dfcu and the other defendants.
The dispute has already passed through several stages of litigation in the English courts.
An earlier High Court ruling in 2022 found that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims. However, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in July 2023, allowing the proceedings to continue.
The case has since generated a series of procedural battles, including disputes over disclosure of documents and the admissibility of evidence.
Allegations surrounding Crane Bank takeover
The claimants allege that BoU’s intervention in Crane Bank and the subsequent sale of some of its assets and liabilities to dfcu were part of an unlawful scheme.
Court records show that the claimants have alleged unlawful means conspiracy, dishonest assistance and unconscionable receipt against the defendants. They also contend that Crane Bank’s assets were transferred at a significant undervalue.
Former BoU supervision officials and former banking executives have featured prominently in the wider dispute.
Among those named in the proceedings are former Crane Bank managing director Jimmy Mugerwa and former dfcu managing director Juma Kisaame. The proceedings also relate to decisions and actions involving BoU during the period when Justine Bagyenda was the central bank’s executive director for supervision.
However, the allegations should not be interpreted as established facts. The UK proceedings are intended to determine the competing claims, and the defendants have consistently denied wrongdoing.
PwC report becomes part of evidence
One of the significant developments in the proceedings has involved reports prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), which was engaged by BoU to conduct a forensic review of Crane Bank.
In a 2025 ruling, the English High Court declined an attempt to exclude the PwC reports from the proceedings. The court noted that some of the reports contained serious findings concerning the management of Crane Bank, while stressing that the material would be considered within the wider evidential process rather than treated as automatically established fact.
The reports have therefore become an important element in the competing accounts of what happened at Crane Bank before its takeover.
Dfcu has maintained that the PwC findings point to serious management problems at Crane Bank and has rejected the allegations brought against it.
dfcu maintains its position
Dfcu has repeatedly denied allegations that it participated in an unlawful scheme to acquire Crane Bank’s assets.
The bank has argued that the acquisition followed BoU’s intervention and that it acted lawfully in the transaction. It has also said that the claims against it are without merit and that it intends to defend itself in court.
The bank’s position is significant because the UK proceedings do not merely concern the value of the assets transferred to dfcu. They also examine the conduct of various parties involved in the events surrounding Crane Bank’s closure and subsequent sale.
A case with wider implications
The dispute has implications beyond the Ruparelia family and dfcu.
Crane Bank was one of Uganda’s largest commercial banks before its intervention by BoU in 2016. The central bank’s actions at the time generated considerable public debate over bank supervision, shareholder rights and the protection of depositors.
The English Court of Appeal, in describing the case, noted that the claimants contend that BoU’s takeover and subsequent disposal of Crane Bank’s assets and liabilities were carried out at a gross undervalue as part of an alleged corrupt scheme. Those allegations remain contested.
The case therefore has the potential to shed further light on the legal and commercial circumstances surrounding one of Uganda’s most consequential banking failures.
Trial expected in London
After years of preliminary litigation, the case is now approaching its substantive stage.
Recent reporting indicates that the trial is expected to begin before the English Commercial Court in October 2026.
The proceedings could provide the parties with an opportunity to present detailed evidence concerning Crane Bank’s financial position, the role of the regulator, the circumstances of the asset transfer and the conduct of those involved.
For Uganda’s banking sector, the outcome will be closely watched.
Whatever the eventual judgment, the case has revived questions about how distressed financial institutions should be handled, how shareholders can challenge regulatory decisions and what safeguards should exist when a bank’s assets are transferred to another institution.
For now, the central question remains unresolved: whether Crane Bank’s collapse and subsequent transfer of assets amounted to a legitimate regulatory intervention or whether, as the claimants allege, the process involved unlawful conduct.
That question will ultimately be determined by the court.