In a profit warning released to the Uganda Securities Exchange on July 30, the lender said its unaudited results for the six months ending June 30, 2026, are likely to show a loss compared to the corresponding period in 2025. According to the bank, the decline is largely the result of substantial legal expenses incurred while defending proceedings before the High Court in England.
The lawsuit was brought by Crane Bank Limited together with several former shareholders, including Sudhir Ruparelia, his wife Jyotsna Ruparelia, and other members of the Ruparelia family. At the heart of the dispute are the events surrounding the 2017 takeover of Crane Bank by Bank of Uganda and the subsequent transfer of selected assets and liabilities to DFCU Bank.
For years, Ruparelia has argued that the takeover of Crane Bank was conducted unlawfully, insisting the institution could have been restored rather than taken over. He has consistently maintained that the transfer of the bank’s assets lacked transparency and was carried out without proper legal justification.
DFCU’s latest statement marks one of the strongest indications yet that the long-running litigation is placing financial pressure on the bank. Although the lender said its core operations remain stable, it acknowledged that the costs associated with defending the case have significantly affected its profitability.
The claimants are seeking compensation exceeding £170 million (approximately Shs840 billion). They contend that DFCU either participated in or benefited from actions that allegedly resulted in the unlawful transfer of Crane Bank’s assets, raising claims that include conspiracy, dishonest assistance, breaches of fiduciary duty and improper acquisition of assets.
The case initially faced a hurdle in 2022 after the English High Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute. However, Crane Bank and the Ruparelia family successfully challenged that decision. In July 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned the earlier ruling, concluding that the matter raised serious legal questions deserving a full trial, allowing proceedings to continue in London.
The substantive hearing is scheduled to begin in October 2026 and is expected to last up to three months. Legal analysts view it as one of the most significant commercial disputes arising from Uganda’s banking industry, with the outcome likely to have major implications for everyone involved.
Background to the Crane Bank Dispute
The origins of the legal battle date back to the closure of Crane Bank by the Bank of Uganda in 2016.
Established in 1995 under the Ruparelia Group, Crane Bank grew into one of Uganda’s largest indigenous financial institutions. By 2015, it operated an extensive branch network across the country, employed thousands of people and managed assets valued at more than Shs1.8 trillion.
On October 20, 2016, the central bank placed Crane Bank under statutory management, citing concerns over its financial health. The move drew nationwide attention because of the bank’s size and importance within Uganda’s banking sector.
Sudhir Ruparelia and fellow shareholders rejected the central bank’s decision, arguing that the bank remained capable of recovery and that the intervention was unjustified. They have consistently maintained that the closure harmed shareholders, employees, customers and confidence in locally owned financial institutions.
In January 2017, Bank of Uganda transferred selected assets and liabilities of Crane Bank to DFCU Bank, effectively bringing Crane Bank’s independent operations to an end. That transaction later became the focus of several legal challenges questioning the legality and transparency of the process.
The Ruparelia family subsequently filed proceedings in the United Kingdom against DFCU and other parties, seeking damages of more than £170 million. They argue that the acquisition of Crane Bank’s assets was unlawful and that DFCU benefited from an improperly executed transaction.
Today, the dispute remains one of Uganda’s most closely followed corporate legal battles. The upcoming London trial is expected to closely examine the circumstances surrounding Crane Bank’s closure, the transfer of its assets, and the competing claims advanced by both sides.
