By our reporter
City businessman Sudhir Repaleria, has vowed to file a suit against central bank calling for accountability for assets and amount of money that Crane bank had before it was put under receivership.
Sudhir said on Monday after the head of Commercial Court, Justice David Wangutusi, dismissed a multi- million case filed against him. BoU/Crane bank under receivership accused the property mogul of fleecing Crane Bank Limited of Shs397 billion.
In an interview with www.mknewslink.com Sudhir noted that the Auditor General cannot account for Shs290 billion, somebody just stole in the name of Crane Bank.
He thanked all the lawyers who really did the tremendous job adding that this is historical as nobody else in the past has been able to take on the central bank.
On what is next after this achievement Sudhir said that they are now going to put a counter case after Cosase found a lot of things including failure to account for the cash in the bank.
Why court awarded Sudhir costs in Shs397b case against Bank of Uganda
On Monday Justice David Wangutusi as expected delivered his ruling in the case where Kampala businessman Sudhir Ruparelia had challenged the decision by the Bank of Uganda/Crane Bank in Receivership to sue him and Meera Investments Limited, seeking recovery of Shs397 billion allegedly fleeced from Crane Bank Limited by the latter two entities.
But in the counter suit Sudhir dismissed the case and argued that Crane Bank in Receivership had no powers to sue since it is not provided for in the law.
Justice Wangutusi agreed with Sudhir and his lawyers, awarding costs of the suit to Sudhir and Meera Investments. But that means it is the Ugandan taxpayer that is to bear the costs since BoU that first dragged Sudhir to court is a public entity that depends on governments money purse.
In his ruling, Justice Wangutusi said that; As for costs, it is well established that unless sufficient reason is given to prevent the award of costs, the costs of any action/cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless Court shall for good reason order otherwise; He quoted Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71; Dauda vs Ahmed & Ors (1987) KLR 665.
“The issue of costs in this case rises a little difficulty. Having found herein above that the liability and assets of Crane Bank had passed over to Dfcu bank the question that arises is who is going to pay the costs.
Under such circumstances the party to bear the costs must be the one who brought the matter to court. At the time of filing the suit Bank of Uganda had taken over management. Counsel for the Plaintiff/ Respondent submitted that the proceedings were not commenced by the Bank of Uganda but by Crane Bank Limited in Liquidation,” he observed.
www.mknewslink.com a greater western Uganda news website