Centurion System Limited :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1st Applicant & 1 other v Kgt (uk) Limited ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3rd Defendant

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI COMMERCIAL &ADMIRALTY DIVISION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2014 CENTURION SYSTEM LIMITED :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1ST APPLICANT KEVIT DESAI :::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2ND APPLICANT VERSUS KGT (UK) LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3RD DEFENDANT RULING 1. The Notice of Motion before me is dated 11th March 2014 and filed in Court on 12th March 2014. It is expressed to be brought under Order 51 Rules 1, 10 (1) and 13 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules as well as sections 3, 3a and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicants seek for the following orders:1. That Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court (Milimani Commercial Courts) Civil Case No. 5875 of 2012 between the Applicants and the Respondent be ordered withdrawn and transferred to this Honourable Court for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of this application. 2. The application is based on the grounds stated on the face of the application and is supported by the affidavit of Allan George Njogu Kamau, an Advocate, sworn on 11th March 2014. 3. Briefly, the Applicants were sued by the Respondent in the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Milimani Commercial Courts Civil Case No. 5875 of 2012 vide a Plaint dated 12th September 2012. The Applicants then filed their statement of Defence together with their counterclaim on 17th October 2012. It is deponed by the Advocate, that in the Counterclaim the Applicants demands from the Respondent a sum in the order of US$ 167,500 which at current market rates translates to a sum of Kshs. 14,405,000/=. He further depones that the subordinate Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said counterclaim and hence the entire suit. 4. It is therefore the Applicants’ case that it is imperative that the said suit be withdrawn from the subordinate Court and transferred to this Honourable Court for hearing and final disposal. The Advocate states that he already drew the attention of the Respondent’s Advocates to the lack of jurisdiction of the subordinate Court. He further states that the said Advocates responded indicating that they had no objection to having the case in the subordinate court withdrawn and transferred to this Court. 5. The Respondent did not file any response to the current application and therefore the same is not opposed. 6. I have considered the application as well as the supporting affidavit. I therefore take the following

page 1 of 2