Court dismisses petition challenging Ritz-Carlton Masai Mara Safari Camp operations

The Environment and Land Court in Narok has struck out a petition that sought to stop the operation of the Ritz-Carlton Masai Mara Safari Camp, ruling that the matter was prematurely filed and that the court lacks jurisdiction.

Justice Lucy N. Gacheru dismissed a Notice of Motion dated August 8, 2025, in which Dr Joel Maitamei Ole Dapash had sought conservatory orders to restrain the opening and operation of the luxury safari camp within the Maasai Mara National Reserve.

The petitioner had argued that the construction of the camp near the Sand River wildebeest migration corridor violated constitutional provisions on environmental conservation, public participation, and protection of cultural heritage. He also claimed that the project contravened a presidential moratorium issued on July 24, 2023, halting new lodge developments within the reserve.

However, the court noted that the camp was officially opened on August 15, 2025, and had been operational since then, rendering the request to halt its opening overtaken by events.

Justice Gacheru found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal threshold for the grant of conservatory orders. The court observed that evidence placed before it showed the project underwent a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), inter-agency consultations, site inspections, and that an EIA licence was issued on May 14, 2024.

The court further noted that the petitioner, in his submissions, conceded that the regulatory framework under the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA) had been properly invoked and that there had been public participation.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the court upheld a Preliminary Objection filed by the Narok County Government.

It held that disputes relating to wildlife management and environmental licensing must first be ventilated before the relevant statutory bodies, including the National Environment Tribunal, under Section 117 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and Section 129 of EMCA.

The judge emphasised the doctrine of exhaustion, stating that where Parliament has established dispute resolution mechanisms, parties must first exhaust those remedies before approaching the court. In this case, the petitioner had not invoked the available statutory avenues before filing the constitutional petition.

Consequently, the court upheld the Preliminary Objection, struck out the entire petition, and awarded costs to the respondents.

In the final orders, the court dismissed the application for conservatory orders and struck out the petition in its entirety, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter due to failure to exhaust alternative remedies.