Ritz-Carlton Mara Wins Big As Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Closure

By Staff Writer

The Environment and Land Court in Narok has struck out a petition challenging the construction and operation of the Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara Safari Camp, ruling that the case was filed in the wrong forum and after the project had already opened.

Justice Lucy Gacheru dismissed an application seeking to stop the camp’s operations and upheld a preliminary objection by Narok County Government. The entire petition was struck out with costs to the respondents.

Environmental activist Dr Joel Maitamei Ole Dapash had sought conservatory orders barring the respondents from opening or operationalising the luxury facility inside the Maasai Mara National Reserve.

He claimed the project violated constitutional provisions on environmental protection and cultural heritage, and was undertaken without adequate public participation by the Maasai community.

In submissions, however, the petitioner acknowledged that “a Comprehensive EIA Project Report was submitted to NEMA,” and that the authority conducted “technical evaluation, inter-agency consultation and site inspections.”

He also admitted there was “substantive compliance with the various provisions of EMCA and Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations,” a concession the court relied on in its determination.

The project developer maintained it complied with all legal requirements. Through its director, the company said it “obtained all the relevant approvals” before construction and denied building along a wildlife migration corridor.

It told the court the camp is located more than 15 kilometres from the nearest migratory route and holds an Environmental Impact Assessment licence issued on May 14, 2024.

County Government of Narok challenged the court’s jurisdiction, citing Section 117 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, which states that “any dispute that may arise in respect of wildlife management, protection or conservation shall in the first instance be referred” to devolved structures.

The NEMA backed that argument, saying the petitioner “did not fully utilise the doctrine of exhaustion or alternative dispute resolution remedies” under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act.

In her ruling delivered virtually on Thursday, Justice Gacheru said conservatory orders are meant to preserve a dispute’s subject matter and cannot issue after the impugned event has already occurred.

She noted the camp officially opened on August 15, 2025 and has remained operational since, making the application to stop its launch overtaken by events and therefore incapable of enforcement at this stage.

On jurisdiction, the judge relied on established precedent, stating that “Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a court has no power to make one more step,” underscoring the court’s decision to strike out the petition.

She found the petitioner failed to exhaust statutory remedies before the National Environment Tribunal and other bodies, and identified no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing those mechanisms.