1. Whether the Plaintiffs has met the threshold for grant of orders for adverse possession?
6.It is the Plaintiff’s case that he has been in continuous, uninterrupted occupation and possession of the suit property for a period in excess of 12 years. The burden of leading the Court to ascertaining this rests with the Plaintiff.
7.This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the instant suit was not contested and that the Defendant neither entered appearance nor filed a Defense. However, the law requires of the Court to look at the weight of the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff even where the same is uncontroverted. See the case of Gichinga Kibutha vs Caroline Nduku  eKLR, where the Court held as follows;
8.It is trite that the burden of proof, according to Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, is placed on the person alleging the occurrence of an event, and where there is no evidence to challenge the allegations, the standard of proof automatically is higher. Undoubtedly, owing to the nature and extent of orders for adverse possession to wit extinction of the right to property, the burden is particularly high.
9.In the instant suit, the burden of proof squarely rests upon the Plaintiff who has a duty to demonstrate that he has met the requirements for the grant of an order of adverse possession. (See Gabriel Mbui vs Mukindia Maranya  eKLR, where the Court stated as follows;
10.Having said that, this Court will proceed to look at the issues outlined above.
11.It is trite that adverse possession is defined as the non-permissive, physical control over land, coupled with the intention of doing so, by a stranger, having actual occupation solely on his own behalf or on behalf of some other person, to the exclusion of all others including the true owner of that land.
13.This right though provided for, does not accrue automatically and must be invoked though a Court of Law, by the person who wishes to benefit from it.
15.The period of twelve years starts to run from the moment the trespasser and/or stranger takes adverse possession of the land and the registered proprietor is regarded as having been dispossessed or having discontinued his possession. In the case of Wambugu v Njuguna (1983) KLR 173, the Court of Appeal held thus:
16.To determine whether the Plaintiff’s right to adverse possession has accrued, this Court will seek to answer the following;i.How did the Plaintiff take possession of the suit property?ii.When he took possession and occupation of the suit property and for how long he has remained in possession?iii.What was the nature of his possession and occupation?
17.It is the Plaintiff’s averment that he gained entry into the suit land sometime in 1991 and he has been in occupation of the same to date. Further, the Plaintiff averred that he had since fenced the suit land and has been conducting farming thereon. That he did all this thing openly and his occupation had never been interrupted and/or interfered with.
18.This Court has perused the Plaintiff’s bundle of documents dated January 28, 2022, and notes that it only contains the pleadings filed herein and a certificate of official search confirming that the suit land is registered in the name of the Defendant.
19.This Court notes that while the Plaintiff alleges to have gained entry into the suit land sometime in 1991 and to have been in occupation of it for about 29 years, but he has not established how he gained the said entry. This Court is unable to tell from the evidence produced and from the Plaintiff’s pleadings whether the said entry was permissive or non-permissive. Further, this court notes that while the Plaintiff alleges to have been in possession of the suit land for over 29 years since 1991, he has not adduced any evidence including but not limited to photographs to support his claim. In addition, the Plaintiff did not even call any witnesses to corroborate and substantiate his averments about the nature of his possession.
20.This Court has herein above stated that the burden of proof was squarely upon the Plaintiff’s ambit, as he is the one who claims to be in adverse possession of the suit land. Further, this Court has also stated that this being an undefended claim, the Plaintiff’s duty to proof was higher. Therefore, this duty Court is bound to thoroughly investigate all the evidence adduced as though the claim was defended even if it was not. The Court is of the view that the Plaintiff failed to appreciate his evidentiary burden of proof and very lightly presented his case. The Plaintiff’s claim is premised on allegations, which allegations he seems to have put little or no effort to substantiate and/or proof with the help of evidence including but not limited to documents, witnesses and photographs.
21.As stated herein above, a claim for adverse possession is not to be taken flippantly as the nature and extent of orders for adverse possession amount to extinction of a right to property of the registered owner of the said property.
22.Based on the above, this Court finds and holds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the required burden of proof to warrant the grant of order for adverse possession over the whole parcel of land known as Loc. 14/kiru/3129, situated within Murang’a County.
23.The upshot of the above is that the Plaintiff herein has failed on a balance of probability to prove his claim for adverse possession against the Defendant herein on the required standard. It follows therefore that the Originating Summons dated August 18, 2020 is found not merited and the same is dismissed entirely.