E N Karomo & Associates Advocates

30/08/2026

26/08/2026

The art of cross examination

LIL DURK TRIAL: BRIAN STEELE GOES TO WORK ON THE PROSECUTION’S LEAD DETECTIVE 👀⚖️

Day 4 of the Lil Durk trial took another turn when defense attorney Brian Steele began cross examining the prosecution’s lead detective.

And Steele’s strategy was clear:

Don’t argue with the detective make him walk the jury through the weaknesses in the investigation and establish uncertainty.

The detective had just finished discussing surveillance footage from the In-N-Out Burger, which prosecutors used to track vehicles and the people allegedly involved after the West Hollywood shooting.

But once Steele got the witness on the stand, he shifted the focus to something else:

🎯 THE UNRECORDED INTERVIEWS.

Steele established that the lead detective said it was his preference to record interviews.

Then Steele pointed out that not all of the interviews were actually recorded.

That opened the door for Steele to start drilling down.

🗣️ “If it wasn’t recorded, we don’t know exactly what was said.”

And the detective had to acknowledge the basic point:

There is no word for word recording of those conversations.

Steele then began walking the detective through different hypothetical situations.

What if investigators told someone they were facing serious prison time?

What if they explained the potential benefits of cooperating?

What if someone initially said they didn’t know anything about Durk, but their story changed after learning what they were facing?

Without a recording, the jury doesn’t have the actual conversation to listen to and determine for themselves exactly what happened.

🔥 AND THIS IS WHERE STEELE REALLY STARTED COOKING.

He wasn’t claiming that an unrecorded interview automatically means somebody lied.

His strategy was much more calculated.

He was getting the detective to acknowledge what the jury doesn’t have.

No recording.

No exact wording.

No way for the jury to independently hear the full conversation.

Instead, they have witnesses and investigators describing conversations after the fact.

Steele then moved over to the American Express account and the flight purchases, questioning whether investigators could definitively determine who made certain purchases when multiple people had access to the account.

Again, Steele wasn’t trying to prove everything in one cross-examination.

He was planting questions.

🧠 AND THAT’S THE POINT OF THIS TYPE OF CROSS.

The defense doesn’t necessarily have to prove the government’s entire case is false.

They need the jury to slow down and ask:

“ How Credible is the Lead Detective”

“How Knowledgeable Is the Lead Detective”

“How do we know that?”

“Where’s the recording?”

“Who actually made that purchase?”

“What exactly was said during that interview?”

That’s why Steele’s cross examination stood out.

He wasn’t just questioning the detective.

He was making the detective explain the investigation itself.

👀 BRIAN STEELE WASN’T TRYING TO WIN THE WHOLE CASE IN ONE CROSS HE WAS OPENING THE DOOR FOR REASONABLE DOUBT.

19/07/2026

The High Court has held that the in duplum rule applies to all lenders including microfinances. In Faulu Microfinance Bank Limited v Kilonzo, a borrower had taken a Kshs. 569,000 loan but defaulted, prompting the lender to claim over Kshs. 621,000. Despite the matter being undefended, the trial court applied the in duplum rule and reduced the recoverable amount to about Kshs. 145,000.

On appeal, the lender argued that the rule only applies to banks, not microfinance institutions. The High Court rejected that argument, holding that the rule is a matter of public policy meant to protect borrowers from excessive interest, and therefore binds all lenders. Bottom line: no lender can hide behind technicalities to inflate debt endlessly.

03/07/2026

You gotta let em walk around dirty. Josiah Graham - Graham Injury Firm

03/02/2026

Someone bought land “clean.”

They did a search.
They paid full value.
They got a title deed.

Years later, the Court of Appeal said:

“That title was illegal.”

This is the story of Williams & Kennedy Ltd v David Kimani Gicharu & Others
(Civil Appeal Nos. E682, E686 & E705 of 2024-consolidated).

And it just became one of Kenya’s most uncomfortable land rulings.

A buyer purchased prime land in Runda.

Like many Kenyans do.

They followed the rules:
✔️ Official search
✔️ Registry confirmation
✔️ Clean paperwork
✔️ No notice of fraud

Everything looked legitimate.

Sounds safe, right?

Except there was a problem.

Two titles existed.

Both issued by the Lands Registry.
Both looked valid.
Both had official backing.

So the buyers argued:

👉 “We relied on the registry.”
👉 “We acted in good faith.”
👉 “We are innocent purchasers for value.”

The Court of Appeal listened.

Then said something chilling:

“That is not enough.”

Here’s what the Court decided (and why it matters):
✅ Where multiple titles exist, courts will not balance equities.
✅ The court will trace history, chronology, and legality.
✅ Only the title with a lawful root survives.
✅ Registry errors do not protect buyers.
✅ Administrative chaos at Ardhi House is not a defense.

And most critically:

❌ An innocent purchaser acquires no immunity if the root title was unlawful.
❌ Article 40(6) of the Constitution was applied without sympathy.

In simple terms:

Courts will no longer launder defective titles through good-faith purchases.

If the first registration was corrupted, every transaction after it collapses.

Let that sink in.

What this means for YOU:

If you’re a BUYER:

→ A search and title deed are no longer enough.
→ Paperwork is not protection.
→ You must interrogate history, prior ownership, disputes, and registry conduct.
→ If the title falls, the court will not save it because you paid.

If you’re a BANK or LENDER:

→ That title deed may not secure your loan.
→ Collateral risk just increased.
→ Credit decisions must go beyond registry searches.

If you’re a LAWYER or PROFESSIONAL:

→ Conveyancing is no longer a checklist exercise.
→ The liability conversation has shifted.

The message from the Court of Appeal is blunt:

Land buying in Kenya is no longer a paperwork exercise.

It is a risk assessment.
And the buyer bears the risk.

Have you ever assumed a title deed meant saffety?