KAMPALA, UGANDA: Earlier this month, Supreme Court Chief Justice Prof. Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza gave a 'major' judgement that plainly stated that the Bank of Uganda's continued delay in compensating Uganda's business magnet Dr Sudhir Ruparelia will cost innocent taxpayers billions more.
In Justice Tibatemwa's judgement, it was explicitly stated that because BoU was vanquished by Sudhir in a multi-billion Crane Bank fraud with fees on February 11th, 2022 (date for initiation of payments due to Sudhir Ruparelia), any delays incur further penalties for Bank of Uganda.
The
judgement resulted from the failure of the two parties involved in the scandal
[Crane Bank and Meera Investments-Sudhir Ruparelia] to reach an agreement on
the content of the instructions of the decree resulting from Civil Appeal No.07
of 2021.
You
might be interested in learning more about this situation. On August 1, 2020,
Crane Bank (in receivership) filed an appeal in this Court. Before the appeal
could be considered, the Appellant withdrew it on September 15, 2020, which the
Respondents opposed to and requested that the appeal be dismissed with costs
under Rule 90 (4) of the Supreme Court Rules.
Following
a court hearing, the Court ordered on February 11, 2022, that the appeal be
rejected with costs to the Respondents in the conditions determined by the
lower courts. Furthermore, the dismissal took effect on the 11th of February
2022, the day of the Court's ruling's endorsement.
The
victorious parties in the application created a draught decree of the orders
and submitted it to the Appellant for approval. The edict was written as
follows:
1.
The appeal is dismissed with costs as determined by the Court of Appeal. Bank
of Uganda will bear the fees.
2. The dismissal of the Appeal shall be effective as of the date of this
judgement, which is February 11, 2022.
3. The Appellant's receivership expired on January 20, 2018, and its
administration reverted to the shareholders.
The
Appellant agreed with the first two orders but objected to the third order and
redrafted the decree to state that the rejection of the Appeal would take
effect on the 11th of February 2022, the date of endorsement of this judgement.
Both
sides agreed, however, that the Appellant's receivership terminated on January
20, 2018, and that management belonged to the shareholders. In other words, the
appellant did not challenge the decision terminating the receivership on
January 20, 2018.
Now,
in her judgement, Chief Justice Tibatemwa decided in favour of Meera
Investments Limited and Sudhir Ruparelia on July 1, 2022.
Sudhir
and Meera Investments Limited were sued by BoU/Crane Bank in Receivership for
allegedly defrauding Crane Bank Limited (CBL) of Shs397 billion, which the
Central Bank sought repaid.
The
Case's Complete History
On
June 30, 2017, Crane Bank Limited (in Receivership) sued Mr. Sudhir Ruparelia
and his Meera Investments Ltd. for inflicting UGX 397 billion in financial
damage to Crane Bank through fraudulent transactions and property title
transfers.
Crane
Bank (in receivership) asked the High Court in Civil Suit No. 493 of 2017 to
order Mr. Ruparelia to repay US$80,000,000, US$9,270,172.00, US$3.560,000.00,
US$990,000.00, and UGX 52,083,995.00 as compensation for breach of fiduciary
responsibility.
While
Hon. Justice Wangutusi dismissed the UGX397 billion case against Mr. Ruperalia
on a technicality, alleging that Crane Bank (in Receivership) lost its powers
to “sue” and to “be sued”, thus rendering its suit a nullity, Crane Bank (in
Receivership) maintaining that receivership is a management situation, and
hence no legal change as to the capacity of a company to sue and be sued.
0 Comments