KAMPALA — The long-running legal dispute between Crane Bank Limited, some of its shareholders and dfcu over the 2017 transfer of some of Crane Bank’s assets and liabilities is heading towards trial at the English High Court, bringing renewed attention to a case that has stretched across several years and jurisdictions.
The claim, brought by Crane Bank and some of its shareholders, is valued at more than £170 million. The claimants allege that the transaction involving Crane Bank’s assets and liabilities was unlawful and that the assets were transferred at a substantial undervalue. dfcu has denied the claims and has maintained that it acted lawfully.
The proceedings stem from the intervention in Crane Bank by the Bank of Uganda in 2016 and the subsequent transaction in which dfcu Bank acquired some of the bank’s assets and assumed certain liabilities in 2017.
A case that survived a jurisdiction challenge
The case has gone through several procedural stages in the English courts.
In 2022, the English High Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. Crane Bank and the other claimants appealed that decision.
The Court of Appeal subsequently determined that the jurisdictional issues should not be resolved at the preliminary stage and that the matter should proceed towards a trial.
dfcu and some of the other defendants sought permission to appeal further. The UK Supreme Court later referred the matter back to the English High Court for trial. dfcu’s own published financial disclosures state that the trial was scheduled to begin in October 2026.
The English judiciary’s description of the proceedings records the claimants’ allegations of unlawful means conspiracy, dishonest assistance, breach of trust or fiduciary duty and unconscionable receipt. The court record makes clear that these are allegations advanced by the claimants, rather than findings against the defendants.
dfcu maintains its defence
dfcu has consistently rejected the claims and said it will vigorously defend the case.
The bank has also stated that the English proceedings concern the transaction through which it acquired some assets and assumed liabilities of Crane Bank after the latter was placed under receivership.
In a recent update on the proceedings, dfcu said the English High Court had made procedural rulings in the case, including matters concerning evidence and disclosure. The bank continues to dispute the allegations brought against it.
The court has also dealt with interim matters involving costs. In one such ruling, Sudhir Ruparelia was required to provide a personal undertaking and guarantee in relation to potential costs if the defendants successfully defend the claim. The ruling did not determine the merits of the allegations.
From Uganda to London
The dispute has its origins in the events surrounding Crane Bank’s receivership in Uganda.
Crane Bank was taken over by the Bank of Uganda in 2016, after which some of its assets and liabilities were transferred to dfcu Bank in 2017.
The subsequent legal dispute has involved questions concerning the transaction and the jurisdiction of the English courts to hear claims arising from it.
For the Ruparelia family and other claimants, the London proceedings provide an opportunity to have their claims determined at trial.
For dfcu, the proceedings represent a continuation of its defence against allegations it says are without merit.
Trial now in focus
With the case moving towards trial, attention is now shifting from the preliminary jurisdictional battles to the substantive claims and defences that will be considered by the English High Court.
The court’s eventual findings will determine the legal issues placed before it by the parties.
Until then, the allegations made by the claimants and dfcu’s responses remain contested positions in ongoing litigation.
The Crane Bank dispute has therefore entered another significant stage, with the October 2026 trial expected to bring closer scrutiny to the circumstances surrounding the 2016 receivership, the 2017 transfer and the claims that have kept the matter before the courts for years.