Court dismisses case against Ritz Cartlton camp in Maasai Mara

Ritzcarlton Maasai Mara Safari Camp

The High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the construction and operation of the Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara Safari Camp in the Maasai Mara National Reserve.

This is after it found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for conservatory orders and prematurely invoked the court’s jurisdiction.

The case was filed by Hon. Dr. Joel Meitamei Olol Dapash against Narok County Government, the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), the Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara Safari Camp as the project proponent, and other related state agencies.

At the core of the dispute were allegations that the luxury safari camp had been constructed along the Sand River within the Maasai Mara ecosystem, obstructing wildlife migration.

“That the construction of Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara Safari Camp has obstructed the migration corridors of wildlife, especially the wildebeests along Sand River in Maasai Mara,” the judgment states.

“And that the approvals and licence issued for such construction contravenes the Constitutional and Statutory Laws, since they were issued without public participation of the local community, who are adversely affected of the construction by the said Luxury Hotel and obstruction of the wildlife, specifically the wildebeests.”

The petitioner sought conservatory orders to restrain those sued from opening or operationalising the camp, whose official opening was scheduled for August 15, 2025.

He further asked the court to empanel an expanded bench under Article 165(4) of the Constitution.

In opposing the application, the camp filed responses demonstrating what they described as full compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements.

They told the court that a Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had been undertaken, inter-agency consultations conducted, and site inspections carried out before NEMA issued an EIA licence on May 14, 2024.

The respondents maintained that the camp was located about 15 kilometres from the nearest wildlife migration corridor, and that public participation meetings were held, with community concerns incorporated into mitigation measures.

During submissions, court documents note the petitioner made key concessions.

“The Petitioner/Applicant admitted that there was substantive compliance with the various provisions on EMCA and Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations,” Justice Lucy Gacheru observed.

“The Applicant also conceded that there was evidence of public participation through various meetings held, especially the meeting of 18th April 2024, and the community concerns were incorporated into mitigation measures.”

In its findings, the court held that Dapash had failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success.

Justice Gacheru observed that the safari camp had already been officially opened on August 15, 2025, and that the conservatory orders sought were therefore “overtaken by events.”

The court emphasised that “conservatory orders cannot be issued to an event that has already occurred,” and found no evidence of imminent harm or prejudice warranting such relief.

On the prayer for empanelment of an expanded bench, the court found that the petitioner had effectively abandoned the request after conceding that the regulatory framework under EMCA had been properly invoked and the statutory agencies had discharged their mandates.

The court held that the petition did not raise any unresolved, novel, or complex constitutional questions requiring an expanded bench.

The court further upheld a preliminary objection on jurisdiction raised by the respondents, finding that the petitioner had failed to exhaust alternative dispute resolution mechanisms provided under EMCA and the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.

Holding that its jurisdiction had been prematurely invoked, the court stated it would strike out the entire petition.

“In a nutshell, after careful consideration of all the issues before this court, the final orders are as that the application (on conservatory orders) is dismissed entirely with costs, the Notice of Preliminary Objection (on juridiction) by 4th Respondent dated 15th September 2025, is upheld, and the court downs its tools, and the entire Petition is struck out with costs to the Respondents,” the judge ruled.