Published on 21/08/2025
A Ugandan daily recently ran a story alleging that billionaire Sudhir Ruparelia had been compelled by a UK court to surrender his mobile phone for forensic scrutiny. However, a review of the actual judgment shows this claim is inaccurate, misleading, and unsupported by the ruling itself.
The decision, delivered on July 24, 2025, by Justice Paul Stanley KC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court in London, contained no directive requiring Sudhir to hand over his phone. Instead, the judgment focused on whether DFCU Bank could amend its defence to rely on conclusions from the disputed PwC forensic reports—a request the court ultimately dismissed in part because the reports lacked an admissible factual basis.
“To the extent that DFCU wishes to plead, as factual allegations that it positively intends to prove, any of PwC’s specific conclusions, paragraph 24.4 attempts to do so in a way that is inconsistent with effective preparation for a fair trial,” the judge ruled.
A thorough reading of the 42-page judgment which provides detailed reasoning on admissibility and pleading standards, confirms that there was no order compelling Sudhir to release his phone, nor Sheena Ruparelia to produce personal emails, contrary to the newspaper’s assertions.
Legal experts following the case described the Observer’s publication as “fabricated conjecture” that distorts procedural matters to produce sensational headlines.
In reality, the ruling restricted DFCU’s reliance on PwC’s findings. Claimants had argued that PwC lacked authority under Ugandan law when the reports were produced and that their sourcing was unreliable. The court agreed, stressing that adopting PwC’s conclusions as facts would compromise trial fairness.
”The PwC reports, whatever their merits, do not resemble a pleading,” the judge observed, clarifying that they cannot be taken wholesale as factual evidence.
Analysts note that this outcome significantly weakens DFCU’s defence by curbing its use of Bank of Uganda-commissioned PwC reports to justify the controversial 2017 takeover of Crane Bank.
Sudhir Ruparelia and fellow shareholders of the defunct bank maintain that the sale was a fraudulent, sham transaction designed to strip the institution of value and transfer assets to DFCU under the guise of regulatory intervention.
