a. Whether the Applicant has proved his 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:
9.The court has considered the Applicant’s evidence on his claim for adverse possession. Although his initial entry was with the permission of the owner pursuant to a sale agreement dated June 15, 1998 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 Applicant’s 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 Applicant’s 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 Applicant’s evidence on his claim for adverse possession.
11.The court accepts that he has been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the portion of ¼ acre out of the suit property for a period exceeding 12 years from the date the relevant sale agreement became null and void. The court also accepts that his possession was adverse since he fenced and developed that portion of land and continued utilizing it as his own.
12.There is no evidence on record to demonstrate that his 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 Applicant’s possession in the legal sense. (See Ndeete vs Githu  KLR 776). The court is thus satisfied that the Applicant has proved his claim for adverse possession to the required standard.