The Environment and Land Court in Narok has dismissed an attempt to stop the operation of the Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara Safari Camp, ruling that the petition was prematurely filed and that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
In a ruling delivered on February 26, 2026, Justice Lucy N. Gacheru threw out both the application seeking conservatory orders and the main petition filed by Hon. Dr. Joel Maitamei Ole Dapash.
The petitioner had moved to court seeking orders to restrain the respondents from opening or operationalising the luxury safari camp situated within the Maasai Mara National Reserve. He claimed the project was constructed near the Sand River wildebeest migration corridor and alleged violations of constitutional provisions on environmental protection, cultural heritage, and public participation.
He also argued that the development went against a presidential directive issued in July 2023 placing a moratorium on new lodges and camps within the reserve.
But in opposing the petition, the developers and government agencies maintained that the project underwent a full Environmental Impact Assessment process, received approvals from the relevant authorities, and complied with statutory requirements under the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA) and other applicable laws.
The court noted that the camp was officially opened on August 15, 2025, and has been operational since then, making the request to stop its opening overtaken by events.
Justice Gacheru found that the petitioner had not met the threshold required for the grant of conservatory orders. The judge observed that documents placed before the court showed that an EIA licence had been issued, site inspections conducted, inter-agency consultations undertaken, and public participation carried out before the project commenced.
Significantly, the court pointed out that in his final submissions, the petitioner conceded that the regulatory framework under EMCA had been properly invoked and that the relevant statutory bodies had discharged their mandates.
On the question of jurisdiction, the court upheld a Preliminary Objection raised by the Narok County Government and supported by other respondents. The judge ruled that disputes relating to environmental licences and wildlife management must first be taken to the statutory dispute resolution bodies, including the National Environment Tribunal, as provided under Section 117 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and Section 129 of EMCA.
The court emphasized the doctrine of exhaustion, stating that where Parliament has created specific mechanisms for resolving disputes, those avenues must be pursued before a party approaches the court.
Finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass those mechanisms, the judge held that the petition was filed prematurely.
The court consequently dismissed the application for conservatory orders and struck out the entire petition, with costs awarded to the respondents.
