Crane Bank’s London Trial Puts Uganda’s DFCU Deal Under Scrutiny

Uganda’s central bank is not a defendant, but its handling of Crane Bank sits at the heart of a London legal battle scheduled to last 16 weeks. Crane Bank and its former shareholders are taking DFCU and other defendants to trial over a transaction they allege was corrupt. DFCU rejects that account. According to Nile Post Uganda, the trial opens at the High Court of Justice on Monday, October 5, 2026.

The proceedings bring together seven claimants and 15 defendants after years of litigation in England. Businessman Sudhir Ruparelia is among the claimants alongside Crane Bank, other members of the Ruparelia family, the estate of Rajiv Ruparelia and Tom Mugenga. The defendants include DFCU Bank, its parent DFCU Limited, British International Investment, Norfinance, Rabo Partnerships, Arise and several individuals. The trial moves the dispute from preliminary legal arguments to examination of the underlying evidence.

A bank rescue becomes a contested transaction

The dispute began in October 2016, when the Bank of Uganda put Crane Bank under statutory management—a process that places a bank under regulatory control—citing severe undercapitalisation, or an insufficient financial cushion. In January 2017, the central bank placed it in receivership, a formal process for handling a troubled institution, and subsequently transferred most of its assets and liabilities to DFCU. Those steps are now central to the claimants’ case.

The claimants allege that the takeover and transfer formed part of a corrupt scheme involving central bank officials and other parties. They say the defendants participated in, or benefited from, that alleged scheme. DFCU disputes the allegations and maintains that Crane Bank was seriously undercapitalised and the transaction was lawful. The central bank’s own annual reporting has described the case as alleging that Crane Bank’s takeover and resolution were planned to benefit DFCU, alongside alleged breaches of duties and trust by the central bank, its officers or agents.

DFCU’s position, as reported by Nile Post Uganda, is that Crane Bank was seriously undercapitalised and the transaction was lawful.

A major preliminary issue was whether an English court could examine actions by a foreign sovereign institution. The foreign act of state doctrine, which can limit such scrutiny, was tested before the Court of Appeal. In July 2023, that court ruled that the doctrine did not block the claims at the stage of deciding whether they could proceed in England. That decision opened the way for a trial; it did not establish that the allegations against DFCU or the other defendants were true.

Documents, costs and the next test

The evidential groundwork has itself produced extensive litigation. A July 2025 ruling addressed DFCU’s proposed use of material relating to a PwC report and other evidence. In March 2026, the High Court issued further rulings on disclosure—the sharing of relevant records—and changes to DFCU’s defence. Transaction documents, correspondence and expert evidence are expected to feature heavily in the trial.

Greenberg Traurig represents the claimants, while Freshfields acts for DFCU. Beyond the legal arguments, the dispute has already carried financial consequences: DFCU has previously disclosed litigation-related costs from the London proceedings. The source provides no amount. The trial gives the claimants an opportunity to present their case and the defendants an opportunity to challenge it through their own evidence.

The next milestones are the evidence presented and any substantive court rulings. The 16-week schedule remains subject to the court’s directions, and the eventual judgment will decide the legal issues before it. Until then, the corruption claims remain allegations, not judicial findings.