The Environment and Land Court in Narok has refused to allow an environmental petition challenging the Ritz‑Carlton Safari Camp Lodge in the Maasai Mara Game Reserve to be withdrawn, ruling that allegations tied to the development raise significant public interest issues that must be determined on their merits.
The high‑profile case, which has drawn local and international attention, centres on claims that the luxury safari camp — operated by developer Lazizi Mara Limited and associated with Marriott’s Ritz‑Carlton brand — may be harming critical wildebeest migration corridors and contravening environmental and regulatory standards.
The constitutional petition was filed in August 2025 by Kenyan environmentalist Dr Joel Meitamei Olol Dapash of the Institute for Maasai Education, Research and Conservation (MERC). The suit named Marriott International Inc, Ritz‑Carlton Hotel Company, Lazizi Mara Limited, the Narok County Government, and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) as respondents, alleging that the safari lodge’s approval and operations violated environmental laws and obstructed a vital wildlife migratory route between Kenya’s Maasai Mara and Tanzania’s Serengeti.
In his petition, Dapash argued that the development threatened wildlife movement and ecosystem balance, undermined indigenous community rights, and was approved without sufficient public participation or compliance with land‑use planning frameworks.
On December 16, 2025, Dapash’s legal team filed a Notice of Withdrawal, stating that the petitioner wished to discontinue the entire suit without costs. His counsel told the court that discussions with respondents had taken place and that concerns raised in the petition were being ‘addressed,’ though no detailed explanation was provided in the notice.
However, Justice Lucy Gacheru delivered a ruling on Thursday, December 18, rejecting the withdrawal on public interest grounds. The judge held that the issues raised — especially allegations about obstruction of the wildebeest migration corridor and broader concerns around environmental conservation and sustainable development — transcend private dispute and fall within matters that require full judicial interrogation and determination.
“Given the nature of the concerns raised and the level of public interest generated, this Court will not allow the notice of withdrawal,” Justice Gacheru said, emphasizing the need for the court to satisfy itself that any withdrawal would not constitute an abuse of the court process.
The ruling underscores that in public interest litigation — especially cases invoking constitutional rights and environmental protection — the court retains discretion to either permit or refuse case withdrawal, even if the petitioner seeks to discontinue the matter.
The request to reject the withdrawal was supported by Lazizi Mara Limited, which argued that the allegations raised could not simply be left unresolved in the public domain. The developer’s senior counsel, Kiragu Kimani, submitted that the company had complied with all regulatory and statutory requirements but had nonetheless suffered widespread reputational harm since the case was filed. He urged the court to hear the matter to its logical conclusion, either clearing the company of the allegations or holding it accountable through judicial findings.
Lazizi’s legal team further argued that allowing the withdrawal without a substantive hearing would leave damaging claims untested, continuing to cast doubt over the legality of the project despite evidence that due process was followed.
In addition to rejecting withdrawal, the court allowed the Law Society of Kenya and the East Africa Wildlife Society to join as interested parties, recognizing that these bodies have legitimate interests in environmental and conservation issues raised by the petition.
Opponents of the Ritz‑Carlton development have raised concerns that siting luxury lodges within or near critical wildlife routes could disrupt animal movement patterns, affect biodiversity, and set dangerous precedents for future developments.
However, the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) has rejected claims that the safari camp blocks migration corridors, stating that the lodge falls within a designated low‑use tourism investment zone and that available GPS tracking of animals shows migration routes remain intact. KWS further noted that all required environmental impact assessments and regulatory approvals were secured before construction.
With the withdrawal attempt rejected, the case will proceed to a full hearing on its merits, with the court expected to deliberate on evidence, environmental assessments, and regulatory compliance in detail. The Environment and Land Court has scheduled the next mention on February 10, 2026, when timelines and procedural steps for the substantive hearing will be set.
