Key Facts
- •Crane Bank Limited (CBL), a Ugandan bank, and its shareholders allege a corrupt scheme by Ugandan government and Bank of Uganda (BoU) officials to seize control of CBL and sell its assets at an undervalue to DFCU Bank.
- •The appellants claim damages exceeding £170 million for conspiracy, dishonest assistance, and knowing receipt.
- •The High Court dismissed the claims, holding they fell under the foreign act of state rule.
- •The appeal challenges the High Court's decision, arguing that exceptions to the foreign act of state rule apply.
Legal Principles
Foreign Act of State Rule
[2023] AC 156
Commercial Activity Exception
Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v Industria Azucarera Nacional SA (The Playa Larga) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171; Korea National Insurance Corpn v Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG [2008] EWCA Civ 1355; Yukos Capital (No 2)
Public Policy Exception
Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249; Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] 2 AC 883; Yukos Capital (No 2)
Kirkpatrick Exception
Kirkpatrick (1990) 493 US 400; Yukos Capital (No 2)
Article 6 ECHR
Human Rights Act 1998, s.6
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
Serious issues to be tried exist regarding the Commercial Activity Exception and the Public Policy Exception.
Appeal dismissed regarding Kirkpatrick Exception and Article 6.
The claims require adjudication on the legality of BoU's actions, and the foreign act of state rule is considered a substantive defence, not a procedural bar.