Judge agrees with Mara hotel owner, declines bid to withdraw petition against Ritz-Carlton

The Environment and Land Court in Narok has agreed with the position of Lazizi Mara Limited and declined a bid to have a petition that was filed against the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company in the Maasai Mara Game Reserve withdrawn.

Environmental activist Meitamei Olol Dapash had moved to court seeking orders to declare that the Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara Safari Camp was unlawfully constructed and that it will cause serious ecological harm, alleging that the premises have blocked key migration corridors for wildebeest and other animals in the expansive reserve.

However, Dapash through lawyer Stephen Adier had sought to have the petition withdrawn, saying the issues raised were already being addressed.

Senior counsel Kiragu Kimani representing Lazizi Mara Limited, the owners of the premises that host the Ritz-Carlton Safari Camp Hotel opposed the bid arguing the case should proceed to full hearing and determination to determine if his clients committed any wrongdoing.

Dapash had sued the Marriot International Inc and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company that manages the premises as the first and second respondents respectively.

Also sued was Lazizi Mara Limited, a Kenyan private company that owns the premises as well as the County Government of Narok and the National Environmental Management Authority.

When the matter came up for directions on Wednesday, the petitioner through lawyer Stephen Adier told the Environment and Land Court in Narok that he wanted to withdraw the petition because the issues raised were already being addressed by the concerned parties.

“We received instructions that there have been discussions between the various parties involved and the petitioner is satisfied are being addressed. As such, he asked us to file the notice for withdrawal which we have filed and served on all parties,” Adier said.

That application was however opposed by senior counsel Kiragu Kimani who is representing Lazizi Mara Limited, the owners of the hotel premises.

Kimani told Justice Lucy Gacheru that it would only be proper if the court can determine if his client was at fault or not, arguing that withdrawing the matter would not stop other interested parties from instituting another petition.

He also argued that the petition had been filed under the banner of public interest and thus withdrawal can only be determined by the court.

Kimani said the petition was filed way back in August and that his client got served three months later. During that time, he argued, his client was subjected to negative publicity and that it was better if the court determines whether they committed any wrongdoing or are vindicated.

“The person adversely affected by publicity of this case is my client as the matter was debated publicly for a long time and my client was vilified not just locally but also globally. We want the court to determine whether my client is at fault or not,” Kimani said.

His position was supported by lawyers Dudley Ochiel and Gichohi Waweru acting for the East African Wildlife Society and the Law Society of Kenya respectively.

The two intended interested parties said their clients have legitimate stake in the proceedings and would be affected by the withdrawal of the petition.

“This petition was filed in the public interest and also being an environmental matter, it can’t just be withdrawn like that, because then what happens to public interst.? Ochiel said.

Waweru said his client was ready to take up the matter as the petitioner so he can proceed with the case.

The other parties, including the county government of Narok did not object to the application for withdrawal.

“We don’t object to the withdrawal. We would be happy to have the application by the petitioner to have this matter entirely withdrawn,” lawyer Maina Ngaruiya for the county government said.

Lawyer Martin Munyu for Marriot and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company said they would welcome the application for withdrawal.

In his rejoinder, Adier defended the application for withdrawal, saying the petitioner had approached the court with genuine concerns which were now being addressed.

“We think it would be an abuse of the court process if the petitioner would insist on continuity of this suit with him being satisfied that his concerns are being addressed,” Adier said.

He said the intended interested parties would suffer no prejudice if the petition is withdrawn.

Justice Gacheru in her ruling on Thursday declined the withdrawal request citing regulations that allows the court to either allow or reject the withdrawal request.

The judge noted that points raised by Senior Counsel Kiragu Kimani representing Lazizi that despite complying with all requirements his clients have been painted in bad light nationally and globally and would wish to have the matter proceed to its logical conclusion so that at the end of the day, they will be vilified or exonerated.

She said the court also must be satisfied that there is no abuse of the court process.

“Given the petition was brought out of great concerns of the blocking of the migratory corridor and thus in public interest liigation, this court won’t allow the notice of withdrawal,” the judge ruled.

“Since matter has been discussed in court of public opinion, let the same proceed for hearing and be determined on merit. Any interested parties can apply for joinder.”

The luxurious hotel that that sits on an islet in the Sand River in the Maasai Mara National Reserve charges upwards of Sh456000 per person per night. It has been on the news headlines since the petition was filed in August.

Each of its 20 tented suites offer what the Marriot International describe as a front-row seat to the great migration of wildebeests.

The Kenya Wildlife Service has since defended the hotel saying ecological, environmental and other regulatory requirements were met and validated prior to its approval.