Mr. Sudhir Ruparelia has yet again floored the Central Bank in an application filed against him seeking a refund of shs 397 billion.
Bank of Uganda (BoU) alongside Crane Bank (in receivership) dragged Sudhir and his Meera Investments Limited to commercial court for allegedly causing a financial loss to Crane Bank as he fraudulently took out shs 397 billion which belonged to customers before the financial institution was taken over by Central Bank.
David Wangutusi, the presiding judge, Justice dismissed BoU’s application on grounds that Crane Bank in receivership lacked a legal basis to sue Sudhir.
The judge added that today that BoU/Crane Bank (in receivership) did not have a legal basis to sue Sudhir.
So,he said that the applicant (BoU) should also pay the businessman legal costs.
This becomes the third time, Mr. Sudhir is triumphing commercial litigations against Bank of Uganda which derive from the hotly contested sale of Crane Bank that he owned until October 2016 when the Central Bank took over its liabilities and assets before selling it off to DFCU Bank at a laughable price of shs 200 billion.
Sudhir earlier who also owns a number oh hotels in Uganda won two conflict of interest cases against the central bank.
He was won two conflict of interest cases against the central bank before.
Thehe clause stipulates that, “Without prejudice to the immediate forging should any legal or administrative proceeding of any kind ensue against SR [Sudhir Ruparelia] as defined in the agreement, the agreement stands voided and BoU shall immediately return to SR the value of the settlement.”
However, in his suit Sudhir wanted BoU to pay him $8 million (about Shs28.8 billion) for breach contract.
According to Sudhir,he says that on January 25, 2017, BoU sold, at an undisclosed sum, assets of Crane Bank to Dfcu bank Limited yet by mid-January 2017, the central bank had approached and urged him to settle the dispute.
Sudhir and his followers were seen celebrating outside Court.
On April 19, 2017, Sudhir claims, BoU acknowledged receipt of US$1.1 million as payment towards the agreed loans and informed him that his deficit on the first instalment of US$8 million was $6.9m, which they demanded he must pay that very day.
That meant he paid a total of $8 million on the same day.
So he argued that the case against him was baseless, an assertion today’s ruling has confirmed.