False: No UK Court Order for Sudhir to Surrender Mobile, Legal Ruling Clarifies

By Gad Masereka

Kampala, Uganda – Claims circulating in a section of the Ugandan press suggesting that businessman Dr. Sudhir Ruparelia was ordered by a United Kingdom court to surrender his mobile phone in connection with the Crane Bank case have been found to be inaccurate and unsupported by the official court record. Contrary to reports, the July 24, 2025 judgment issued by Justice Paul Stanley KC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court in London, made no such directive.

The 42-page ruling, which focused on legal arguments around admissibility and proper pleading, dealt primarily with DFCU Bank’s attempt to amend its defence to incorporate conclusions from the disputed forensic audit reports compiled by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). In his ruling, Justice Stanley restricted the extent to which DFCU could rely on those reports, citing a lack of evidentiary foundation and concerns over fairness in trial proceedings.

“To the extent that DFCU wishes to plead, as factual allegations that it positively intends to prove, any of PwC’s specific conclusions, paragraph 24.4 attempts to do so in a way that is inconsistent with effective preparation for a fair trial,” the judge stated, underlining the importance of maintaining procedural integrity in such a high-stakes commercial dispute.

Notably absent from the ruling was any instruction for Dr. Ruparelia to hand over his mobile phone for forensic analysis. The same applies to claims that Sheena Ruparelia, a director in the Ruparelia Group, was compelled to surrender her private email correspondence. These allegations, as published by one local newspaper, do not appear anywhere in the court’s detailed judgment.

Legal experts familiar with the case have described the misreporting as “reckless and misleading,” accusing the publication of distorting procedural discourse to manufacture controversy. One UK-based legal analyst, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case, noted that “the ruling was actually a setback for DFCU, not Sudhir. The judge made it clear that reliance on PwC’s conclusions without proper factual scaffolding would undermine the fairness of the proceedings.”

The judgment is a significant development in the ongoing litigation involving the controversial 2017 takeover of Crane Bank. Dr. Ruparelia and his co-claimants argue that the transaction, facilitated by the Bank of Uganda, was marred by procedural irregularities and lacked transparency. They maintain that the alleged bidding process was a façade used to legitimize the undervalued transfer of assets to DFCU Bank.

The PwC reports, which DFCU had hoped to introduce as part of their defence, were also called into question over licensing issues. At the time of their commission, PwC reportedly operated without the proper regulatory approvals under Ugandan law, further casting doubt on the integrity of their findings. The High Court’s refusal to treat those findings as fact represents a considerable blow to DFCU’s legal strategy.

“The PwC reports, whatever their merits, do not resemble a pleading,” Justice Stanley wrote, signaling that third-party assessments without direct evidential value cannot replace factual assertions supported by trial-ready documentation.

As the legal proceedings continue, the dispute over the closure and sale of Crane Bank remains one of Uganda’s most consequential corporate battles, drawing scrutiny from international observers and legal scholars alike. The misrepresentation of the UK court’s recent ruling has only intensified public interest, raising questions about journalistic responsibility and the role of accurate legal reporting in matters of national significance.