Dfcu Bank has secured a temporary victory in a legal battle involving over Shs 8 billion after the High Court stayed an enforcement order in a rent dispute with Crane Management Services, a company under the Ruparelia Group umbrella.
Justice Steven Mubiru of the Commercial Division issued the stay of execution on a garnishee order that had authorized the recovery of the funds from dfcu’s account at the Bank of Uganda. The funds were tied to a prior judgment awarding rent arrears and damages to Crane Management, following a contentious fallout over tenancy terms.
The conflict stems from a 2013 tenancy agreement in which DFCU leased office space from Meera Investments Ltd, owned by tycoon Sudhir Ruparelia and managed by Crane Management. The lease was part of Meera’s extensive commercial property portfolio. Trouble began after the closure and takeover of Crane Bank in 2017, when DFCU assumed some of its assets but allegedly failed to meet its rent obligations.
Crane Management initiated legal proceedings, demanding over $385,000 and nearly Shs 3 billion in unpaid rent and compensation. In 2024, the High Court ruled in favor of the property firm, awarding them the full amount plus Shs 400 million in general damages and interest, bringing the total to more than Shs 8 billion.
However, DFCU contested the ruling and filed an appeal, arguing that immediate enforcement would cause irreversible harm to its operations, especially if the Court of Appeal later overturned the judgment. The bank also expressed concerns about recovering the money if it was paid out and the appeal succeeded.
In siding with DFCU, Justice Mubiru emphasized the legitimacy of the issues raised in the appeal and agreed that enforcing the judgment prematurely could undermine the entire appellate process.
“The applicant has demonstrated a plausible legal argument and established a credible risk that the appeal could be rendered ineffective if execution proceeds at this stage,” said the judge.
He further questioned the financial strength of Crane Management Services, suggesting there could be difficulty retrieving the funds if DFCU were to win on appeal.
With the stay in place, the matter now awaits a decision from the Court of Appeal, which will determine whether DFCU ultimately has to pay the disputed amount.
