High Court to decide on Sudhir petition today
Mr Sudhir Ruparelia. FILE PHOTO
What you need to know:
- Acting on the findings of a forensic audit by PriceWaterCoopers, the central bank took over Crane Bank and suspended the board after the management failed to recapitalise the bank. The central bank later liquidated Crane Bank to dfcu Bank in January this year.
- In his defence, Mr Ruparelia also denied all the allegations against him and responsibility for the collapse of the bank.
Kampala. The High Court will today deliver a ruling on whether Bank of Uganda (BoU) lawyers prosecuting the case against property mogul Sudhir Ruparelia over closure of his Crane Bank are guilty of conflict of interest in the matter.
This follows a petition by Mr Ruparelia accusing BoU lawyers (MMAKS Advocates and AF Mpanga Advocates) of conflict of interest. Mr Ruparelia also accuses BoU of breach of Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement (CSRA).
In the run up to the closure of his Crane Bank in October last year, it emerged that Mr Ruparelia and BoU, under Clause 7 of the CSRA, had agreed not to sue each other. Mr Ruparelia had agreed to return the money the forensic audit found had been fraudulently taken out of the bank.
Kenya businessman Rasik Kantaria is said to have returned $7.5m (Shs27b) and Mr Ruparelia, who owned majority shares in the bank, agreed to pay the money in instalments with a deposit of $8m (about Shs29b), with the balance to be paid using properties which included several plots of land in Kololo and around Kampala. But several of the plots were found unsuitable as some were inaccessible or located in swamps. The properties were rejected.
On July 13, BoU sued Mr Ruparelia and his Meera Investments seeking to recover about Shs400b he allegedly fraudulently extracted from Crane Bank. In the suit, BoU also sought to recover freehold land titles for Crane Bank branches, general damages and costs of the suit.
In his defence, Mr Ruparelia said BoU lawyers Timothy Masembe Kanyerezi and Mr David Mpanga had previously represented his Crane Bank and are, therefore, potential witnesses in the case. He argued that they are ineligible to handle the case for alleged conflict of interest. The lawyers have dismissed his claims as false.
Background
Acting on the findings of a forensic audit by PriceWaterCoopers, the central bank took over Crane Bank and suspended the board after the management failed to recapitalise the bank. The central bank later liquidated Crane Bank to dfcu Bank in January this year.
In his defence, Mr Ruparelia also denied all the allegations against him and responsibility for the collapse of the bank.
