The Environment Court has struck out a second case which was filed to challenge the construction of luxury hotel at the Maasai Mara- JW Marriott Mara Safari Camp.
Environment and Land Court Judge Lucy Gacheru in her ruling yesterday said that the case filed by the East Africa Tour Guide Drivers Association was defective as they had jumped the gun in their case against Ritz-Carlton Company LLC and Marriot International INC.
She observed that although the law is clear on the procedure to follow, by filing first filing complaints before the National Environment Tribunal (NET), the association nevertheless chose to bypass it.
For this, she said, the court lacked powers to entertain the case. Justice Gicheru nevertheless said that she could not also have issued the orders sought by the drivers as it was clear that billions had been spent in putting up the facility after it got clearance from among others Narok County and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).
Justice Gicheru agreed with Carlton and Marriot lawyers that it would be in vain to block development or advertising about the facility as it had already been built and operational.
She was of the view that the relevant authorities have had considered wildlife conservation and proper planning before they issued clearance.
The judge noted that it could not intervene by halting the operations before determining the approvals legality.
“ The Court must also consider where the public interest lies. On the material presently before the Court, the project has been completed and is operational. 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. Public interest therefore militates against the suspension of an operational development through interlocutory orders before the legality of those approvals has been conclusively determined,” said Justice Gacheru.
In the case, the drivers’ association had urged the court to bar the hotel, or its employees from Advertising, marketing, receiving bookings for, or operating any commercial tourism activities around the facility.
At the same time, they asked the court to also bar them from interfering with, intimidating, or harassing the association, their members, or any other person accessing the Sand River wildlife corridor.
At the same time, they sought for cancellation of the licenses issued to the hotel. The court was also urged to force them to take immediate steps to prevent further environmental degradation and blockage of the Sand River wildlife corridor.
In opposition, Ritz-Carton and Marriot urged the court to strike out the case. They argued that the case was similar to the one filed bu a conservationist Dr Joel Meitamei Olol Dapash, which equally suffered the same fate.
At the same time, the two argued that they had been erroneously added to the case there was no direct order or issue raised against them.
They asserted that the allegations of the camp obstructing the wildebeest migration were scientifically and factually unfounded since no gazetted, recognized or scientifically documented wildlife migratory corridor passed through the project site.
The court heard that that it had confirmed that the camp was not
situated within any migration corridor, and did not obstruct wildlife movement.
At the same time, the court heard that it had been designed with open spaces, ecological buffers and low – impact structures intended to coexist with wildlife movement and that post – construction environmental audits confirmed compliance with all environmental safeguards, implementation of all mitigation measures recommended in the Environmental Impact Assessment, and the absence of pollution, habitat fragmentation, ecological disturbance or any enforcement action by the relevant regulatory authorities.
In the first case was struck out by the same court, Justice Gacheru said that Dr. Olol Dapash had jumped the gun as he was required to file his complaint before the NET, before moving to the court.
“This court has not seen any of the above exceptions in this petition. The court finds that the jurisdiction of this court has been prematurely invoked and being persuaded by various authorities cited by the 4th and 5th respondents, the court finds that the preliminary objection herein is merited. The court has no jurisdiction to hear and determines this petition for contravening the doctrine of exhaustion,” ruled Justice Gacheru.
Olol Dapash had initially sought to discontinue the entire suit he lodged on August 8, 2025.
In the petition, he had sued Marriott International Inc, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Lazizi Mara Limited, the Narok County Government of Narok and the National Environment Management Authority (Nema).
Lawyer Martin Munyu, appearing for Marriott and the Ritz- Carlton, said his clients wanted to be discharged from the proceedings.
However, advocate Kiragu Kimani, appearing for Lazizi Mara Limited, noted that the case presented an unusual situation.
“There is an unusual scenario where the
petitioner wants to withdraw, but other parties want the matter settled once and for all. Where a petition is presented on the basis of public interest, Rule 27(1) of the Mutunga Rules gives the court the ultimate authority to determine whether a withdrawal should be allowed,” Kimani said.
He argued that the case was an abuse of court process and misconceived. According to him, there was evidence to show that all required processes and approvals were done from 2023 when his clients sought from Narok County a place to construct a camp.
The senior lawyer asserted that the firm then got all relevant approvals, such as approval from Water Resources Authority, through a letter dated December 10, 2024, carried out Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) which it submitted on April 18, 2024, and the required fees as required by the law.
He told the court that his client got an EIS license on May 14, 2024, adding that before commencement of the construction, it
submitted the application for approval of the architectural drawings for the camps, bridges and ancillary facilities.
