New twist in Sudhir vs BoU battle, businessman not ready to give Crane Bank Shs 189bn

New twist in Sudhir vs BoU battle, businessman not ready to give Crane Bank Shs 189bn
Share:

Sudhir Ruparelia has rejected a claim by the Bank of Uganda, demanding that the businessman pays the central bank U$52 million, as balance accruing from a previous transaction involving US$60 million.

In an affidavit sworn by BoU legal counsel Margaret Kasule, she avers that the businessman pays the money, an alleged spill-over from the US60m, in respect to 47 titles (both Mailo and Freehold) of the now-closed Crane Bank (in receivership), under the ‘Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement’ (CSRA) that Mr. Ruparelia had earlier signed with the BoU.

But in his response drawn by the Kampala Associated Advocates (KAA), the businessman answers: “I am advised by my lawyers, whose advice I verily believe to be true, that all the money under the CSRA was the strict entitlement of the Bank of Uganda only and Crane Bank Limited (in Receivership) has no right to the $52m or any sum of money under the CSRA as the Clause specifically states “that the $60m shall be paid to BOU (Bank of Uganda).”

Further, in his submission Mr. Ruparelia says the BoU breached the CSRA when it sued him.

‘…Should any legal or administrative proceedings of any kind ensue against SR (as defined in this agreement), the Agreement stands voided and BOU shall immediately return to SR the value of the Settlement…’, the KAA submission states in part as provided in Clause 12 of the CSRA.

Through the KAA, Mr. Ruparelia further avers that: ‘…When the Plaintiff/Applicant filed   HCCS 493 0(2017, the entire Agreement was voided as per Clause 12 and neither Crane Bank Limited (in Receivership) nor Bank of Uganda can seek to enforce their rights under the CSRA…’.

Mr. Ruparelia also points out illegalities in Kasule’s affidavit.

“I have further been advised by my lawyers which advice I verily believe to be true, that insofar as the proposed amendment attempts to introduce an alternative cause of action under the CSRA, it is barred by the principle of approbation and reprobation. Crane Bank Limited (in Receivership) having made an election to abandon the CSRA cannot resile from that election,” he says.

Meanwhile the case, in which Mr. Ruparelia also challenges two city lawyers, Timothy Masembe Kanyerezi of MMAKS Advocates and David Mpanga of AF Mpanga-Bowmans of conflict of interest for representing the BoU, is set to be heard in the High Court Commercial Division tomorrow.

According to Mr. Ruparelia’s submissions, lawyers Masembe and Mpanga should appear as witnesses in the case.

Share:

You must be logged in to post a comment Login