Uganda News

In the Crane bank case, the BoU has withdrawn its appeal against Sudhir.

The Bank of Uganda (BoU)/Crane Bank in receivership has sued Sudhir Ruparelia and Meera Investments Limited for allegedly stealing Shs397 billion from the bankrupt Crane Bank Limited (CBL), which the central bank wants repaid.

In the dispute over the sale of the now-defunct Crane Bank, the Bank of Uganda has withdrawn an appeal filed in the Supreme Court against businessman Sudhir Ruparelia and his Meera Investments Ltd.

“Take notice that the appellant has decided not to pursue the appeal any further. Take further notice that the appellant shall pay the respondent’s expenses of the appeal and in the lower courts,” says a notification filed in the Supreme Court.

In the anticipated appeal, BoU sought to overturn a previous Court of Appeal decision in Sudhir’s favor.

The Court of Appeal in Kampala denied an appeal filed by the Bank of Uganda against an earlier verdict dismissing a shs397 billion commercial dispute between Crane Bank in receivership and businessman Sudhir Ruparelia in June of last year.

The Bank of Uganda (BoU)/Crane Bank in receivership has sued Sudhir Ruparelia and Meera Investments Limited for allegedly stealing Shs397 billion from the bankrupt Crane Bank Limited (CBL), which the central bank wants repaid.

However, the Commercial Court’s Justice David Wangutsi denied the Bank of Uganda’s complaint against Sudhir Ruparelia, which sought to recover Shs 379 billion from him.

The Commercial Court dismissed the case in 2019, ruling that after Crane Bank was placed under receivership, it was protected from legal action under Section 96 of the Financial Institutions Act (FIA), and so had no legal authority to sue Ruparelia.

Crane Bank had been in receivership for three years when the court concluded that it was a non-existent corporation.

After losing the lawsuit, BoU appealed to the Court of Appeal to overturn the lower court’s ruling, but they were unsuccessful again.

“We concur with the judgement of the (High Court).” The judges of the Court of Appeal declared that people should not hide behind non-existent people, initiate frivolous lawsuits, and ask for cost orders against non-existent people.

“In this case, we find no such litigation misconduct on the part of the respondents, and as a result, we see no basis to withhold the respondents’ suit costs. As a result, we uphold the trial judge’s cost ruling. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. As a result, it is dismissed with costs both here and in the lower court.”

BoU had sought to overturn this decision in the Supreme Court before abandoning the case.

ADVERTISMENT

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button