Judge Delivers Mixed Ruling in Crane Bank vs DFCU Case
Judge Delivers Mixed Ruling in Crane Bank vs DFCU Case
UK court blocks key PwC audit findings from being used as evidence
A judge in the United Kingdom has issued a mixed ruling in the ongoing legal battle between Crane Bank and DFCU Bank, barring DFCU from relying on key audit findings as evidence while still allowing the case to move forward.
The ruling was delivered on July 24, 2025, by Justice Paul Stanley KC at the High Court of England and Wales. It addresses a central issue in the case: whether DFCU can use the conclusions of a forensic audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in its defense against claims filed by Crane Bank.
According to the court, DFCU will not be permitted to use PwC’s audit findings as factual evidence during the trial. However, the bank may still present independent allegations about Crane Bank’s performance, including claims about high non-performing loans and governance issues—so long as they are not directly attributed to the PwC report.
Background of the Case
The case stems from the 2017 acquisition of Crane Bank by DFCU, following regulatory intervention by the Bank of Uganda. PwC was commissioned to conduct an audit after Crane Bank was placed under statutory management, and its report included claims of fraud, insider lending, and irregular accounting practices.
Crane Bank has challenged the credibility and fairness of the report, arguing that it was never given full access to the findings or the opportunity to respond.
Court's Findings
Justice Stanley ruled that while the PwC reports can be referred to as documents that exist and are part of the historical record, their contents cannot be presented as proven facts in court. He noted that allowing DFCU to rely on the audit findings would be unfair, particularly given Crane Bank’s limited ability to access and challenge the material.
The judge further ruled that DFCU’s legal team must rely on its own evidence to support its claims against Crane Bank, without importing conclusions from third-party reviews.
Disclosure Requests Limited
The court also rejected DFCU’s request for broad disclosure of documents from Crane Bank’s side. Instead, it allowed a limited scope of access to specific email accounts and devices belonging to a few former executives, covering a defined period between 2015 and 2019.
What Lies Ahead
No trial date has been fixed yet, as both sides are still expected to complete further submissions. The ruling now shifts the focus of the case toward original documentation and firsthand evidence, as both banks prepare for what could be a lengthy legal process.
Despite previous rulings by Ugandan courts that questioned Crane Bank’s legal standing, the UK court continues to consider the case valid and ongoing.
ENS will continue to follow the story and provide updates as developments unfold.
