a. Whether the Applicants have proved their claim for adverse possession
7.The court has considered the material and submissions on record on this issue. The elements of adverse possession were summarized in the case of Kasuve –vs- Mwaani Investments Ltd & 4 Others  1KLR 184 as follows:
8.Similarly, in the case of Chevron (K) Limited –vs- Harrison Charo Wa Shutu  eKLR it was held, inter alia, that:
9.The court has considered the Applicants’ evidence on their claim for adverse possession. Although their initial entry was with the permission of the owner pursuant to sale agreements the consent stood terminated by operation of law upon expiry of 6 months from the date of the agreement for want of the consent of the LCB consent in terms of Section 6 of the Land Control Act. See - Situma –vs- Cherongo  KLR 84.
10.It is evident that the Applicants’ evidence on the elements of adverse possession was not challenged at the trial since the Respondent did not attend the trial to question its credibility. It is further evident that the Applicants’ evidence was not controverted since the Respondent did not attend court to offer contrary evidence. In the premises, the court is inclined to accept the Applicants’ evidence on their claim for adverse possession.
11.The court accepts that they have been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the portion of 1½ acres out of the suit property for a period exceeding 12 years from the date the relevant sale agreements became null and void. The court also accepts that their possession was adverse since they fenced and developed that portion of land and continued utilizing it as their own.
12.There is no evidence on record to demonstrate that their possession has ever been interrupted in the legal sense. There was no evidence to show either that the registered owner had made a peaceful and effective entry into the land or that he had instituted legal proceedings for recovery thereof. What appears on record is a demand letter by the Respondent’s advocates which is not sufficient to interrupt the Applicants’ possession in the legal sense. (See Ndeete –vs- Githu  KLR 776). The court is thus satisfied that the Applicants have proved their claim for adverse possession to the required standard.
b. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the suit
13.The court has already found and held that the Applicants have proved their claim for adverse possession of the portion of 1½ acres they are seeking from the suit property. It would therefore follow that they are entitled to the reliefs sought for the purpose of facilitating their registration as the proprietors of that portion of land. The court is thus inclined to grant the Applicants all the necessary reliefs to facilitate their registration as proprietors under Section 38 of the LAA.