The Commercial Court in Kampala, on Monday morning, dismissed a commercial dispute that had been filed against city businessman, Sudhir Ruparelia.
On Monday, Justice , David Wangutsi ruled that by the time of filing the case, Crane bank was non-existent and under the laws the same could not sue anyone.
“In conclusion, the Plaintiff/ Respondent did not have jurisdiction to file HCCS No. 493 of 2017. It is also my finding that the property the Plaintiff/ Respondent was seeking when she filed the suit on 30th June 2017 had earlier been given away by the Receiver to DFCU Bank on the 24th of January 2017 four days into Receivership and five months before the filing of this suit thus leaving the Plaintiff/ Respondent with no property,” the judge ruled.
“Furthermore, it is my finding that the orders sought against the 2nd Applicant are barred in law rendering the Plaintiff/ Respondent with no cause of action against the 2nd applicant.”
Justice Wangutsi explained that by June 30, 2017 when the suit was filed, Crane bank had no powers to do so since the same had ceased to own property on top of their liabilities and assets being exhausted after the receivership.
The judge argued by issuing a public notice indicating that it has taken over management of Crane Bank, the bank had been conducting business under management and control of Bank of Uganda.
“This public notice made it clear that the receiver had done an evaluation of the respondent and arranged for the purchase of its assets and assumption of its liabilities by another financial institution. In my view after conveying all these assets to DFCU Bank together with the liabilities including deposits the Respondent was left high and dry with no proprietary interest in any of the assets that had originally belonged to it,” the judge said.
“The receivership was exhausted with that transfer and conveyance. The respondent, therefore, had no locus standi to file any suit claiming any property because it had ceased to exist.”
The judge also ordered Bank of Uganda pay Sudhir for costs he had spent in pursuing the case arguing that it’s the bank that had lodged the suit on behalf of the defunct Crane Bank.