a. Whether the Applicant has proved her claim for adverse possessionPARA 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 her claim for adverse possession. Although her initial entry was with the permission of the owner pursuant to a sale agreement dated 17.03.2009 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 her claim for adverse possession.
11.The court accepts that she 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 her possession was adverse since she fenced and developed that portion of land and continued utilizing it as her own.
12.There is no evidence on record to demonstrate that her 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 her claim for adverse possession to the required standard.
b. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the suit
13.The court has already found and held that the Applicant has proved her claim for adverse possession of the portion of ¼ acre she is seeking from the suit property. It would therefore follow that she is entitled to the reliefs sought for the purpose of facilitating her registration as the proprietor of that portion of land. The court is thus inclined to grant the Applicant all the necessary reliefs to facilitate her registration as proprietor under Section 38 of the LAA.