Lawyer Peter Kabatsi has asked the Supreme Court to order Bank of Uganda (BOU) to pay costs, likely to be in billions of shillings to businessman Sudhir Ruparelia.

While appearing before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Kabatsi, Joseph Matsiko and Elison Karuhanga insisted that BOU should pay costs not Crane Bank (in receivership) as claimed by BOU lawyers.

There is a contention of whether BOU or Crane Bank (in receivership) should pay costs after the central bank lost a case in which it had sought to recover shsh397b from Sudhir.

Bank of Uganda (BOU), in conjunction with Crane Bank, in receivership, sued Sudhir and Meera Investments Ltd at the Commercial Court, accusing them of allegedly fleecing the defunct Crane Bank Limited (CBL) of sh397b that the central bank had wanted to be refunded.

Kabatsi said both the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal ordered BOU to pay costs because the central bank has been handling the matter from the beginning and not its shadow (Crane bank in receivership).

Both Commercial Court and Court of Appeal ruled that there was no reason to deny costs to be paid to Sudhir.

He argued that Crane bank is not in existence anymore and cannot be ordered to pay costs because it had been closed by BOU.

“It would cause a lot of injustice if BOU lawyers turn around to say the ‘shadow’ should bear the costs of the suit,” Kabatsi said.

Kabatsi rejected the claim that the case had been withdrawn. He said the appeal is still pending in court.

He said BOU’s attempt to withdraw the appeal from the Supreme Court was intended to avoid costs and cause miscarriage of justice.

Kabatsi said Crane Bank was closed, and ceased being a financial institution under the Financial Institutions Act, adding that it could not, therefore, be ordered to pay costs.

“The withdrawal of the appeal could only be effective after all issues in the matter are settled,” Kabatsi said.

He told court presided over by Justices Opio Aweri, Faith Mwondha, Lillian Tibatemwa, Ezekiel Muhanguzi and Percy Tuhaise that any attempt by anyone to overturn court’s decision amounts to contempt of court.

Through his lawyers, Sudhir said the move by BOU is prejudicial and, if not stopped, he would suffer irreparable damages. He argued that he has already incurred losses because of BOU actions.

BOU RESPONDS

BOU’s lawyer Albert Byamugisha maintained that the appeal had been withdrawn and that they do not have interest in prosecuting the case.

Byamugisha said BOU legal officer Margaret Kasule swore an affidavit as an official in receivership, but not as BOU. Therefore, the central bank cannot be held liable to pay costs.

He told court that Crane Bank should bear the costs because BOU is not a party to the case. He said the Financial Institutions Act made BOU a liquidator.

BOU, he said, acted as a receiver adding that there is no mandate on its part to bear the costs of the suit.

He explained to court that BOU took responsible steps to ensure that Crane Bank and Meera Investment was under receivership and could not bear any other responsibility.