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.
Justice Lucy Gacheru dismissed the case brought by the East Africa Tour Guides Drivers Association, ruling that the dispute should have been filed before the National Environment Tribunal.
The association had sought orders restraining the developers from continuing operations, advertising, marketing or receiving bookings for the safari camp, which offers 20 treetop tented suites and other luxury amenities.
The petitioners also sought orders compelling the Narok County Government and the National Environment Management Authority (Nema) to suspend or revoke all operational licences, permits and approvals issued for the project.
The petitioners alleged that the development had obstructed an ancient wildlife migration route used by approximately 1.5 million wildebeest.
“The petitioner also averred that the Safari Camp comprises permanent concrete structures erected within a protected riparian zone along the Sand River, thereby obstructing established wildlife access routes, and narrowing a protected migration corridor between the Maasai Mara National Reserve and the Serengeti National Park; and that the continued operation of the facility has resulted in habitat fragmentation, pollution, disturbance of a vital riparian ecosystem and degradation of a globally significant Unesco World Heritage.”
The petitioners further alleged that no lawful Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or meaningful public participation had been undertaken before the project commenced.
The respondents, including Lazizi Mara Limited, Ritz-Carlton Company LLC and Marriott International Inc., opposed the petition.
They argued that the case was premature because the petitioners had not exhausted the statutory dispute resolution mechanisms available under the law.
The respondents denied the allegations of environmental non-compliance, stating that the camp was lawfully developed after a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted. They said EIA Licence No. Nema/EIA/PSL/32348 was issued on May 14, 2024.
They also maintained that no gazetted, recognised or scientifically documented wildlife migratory corridor passes through the project site and said the camp was designed with open spaces, ecological buffers and low-impact structures intended to coexist with wildlife movement.
Kenya Wildlife Service Director General Erustus Kanga told the court that the Maasai Mara National Reserve is managed by the Narok County Government and that KWS does not issue permits, licences or approvals for activities within the reserve.
In her ruling, Justice Gacheru found that the dispute centred on development approvals, environmental licences and planning decisions that fall within specialised statutory mechanisms.
“The petitioner has not demonstrated that the National Environment Tribunal, the statutory mechanisms under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act or the Physical and Land Use Planning Act were unavailable, ineffective or incapable of addressing the grievances relating to the impugned licences, approvals and permits,” the judge ruled.
“Accordingly, the court finds and holds that the present petition was prematurely presented before this court and offends the doctrine of exhaustion.”
The judge further noted: “It is also apparent that substantial financial investment has already been undertaken and that the statutory agencies charged with environmental regulation, physical planning and wildlife conservation exercised their respective mandates before issuing the impugned approvals.”
Justice Gacheru also dismissed an application seeking her recusal, saying the fact that a judge had previously handled a matter involving similar facts was not, on its own, sufficient to establish bias.
The court struck out the petition with costs to the respondents.
