The High Court has thrown out Sudhir Ruparelia’s Shs40 billion case against DFCU Bank.
In June 2024, Ruparelia, through Meera Investments Limited, dragged DFCU Bank to the Land Division of the High Court, accusing the bank of contempt of court for allegedly disobeying a judgment and decree issued on October 24, 2023.
In its October 24, 2023 ruling, the court held that DFCU Bank’s occupation and continued use of the suit properties following its takeover of Crane Bank constituted trespass. The court further ruled that Meera Investments Limited, as the registered proprietor of the freehold/Mailo interest in the properties, was entitled to vacant possession within three months of the judgment.
On February 2, 2024, the court granted an application for execution and appointed a court bailiff to evict DFCU Bank and its agents from the suit properties. Following the execution order, DFCU Bank peacefully vacated 47 of the 48 suit premises and handed them over to Meera Investments Limited, although the properties had not been restored to their original condition as directed by court.
Subsequently, in June 2024, Meera Investments Limited returned to court, accusing DFCU Bank of failing to restore the suit properties within the three-month period stipulated in the judgment or to pay restoration costs. The company sought court orders compelling DFCU Bank to pay Shs40.1 billion to facilitate the restoration of the properties, arguing that the bank had abdicated its court-ordered obligations.
However, according to court documents, following the judgment in Civil Suit No. 948 of 2017, Meera Investments Limited and DFCU Bank held a meeting and mutually agreed that the bank would peacefully hand over the suit properties. During the handover process, both parties acknowledged that the properties had not been restored at the time of delivery.
In his ruling, justice Samuel Emokor held that contempt of court could not be established, noting that DFCU Bank’s failure to restore the properties was lawful since there was a pending application that halted further execution of the court orders pending determination of an appeal.
“Contempt of court for willful refusal to comply cannot be established by the applicant. The failure to comply was lawful as there was an application halting further execution of the orders pending the determination of the appeal. Accordingly, DFCU Bank cannot be found in contempt,” the judge ruled.
“I will not proceed to handle ground two seeking consequential orders since Meera Investments Limited has failed to establish contempt of court. This application is dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.” He ruled.
