The Environment and Land Court in Narok has struck out a petition seeking to halt the operation of the Ritz-Carlton Masai Mara Safari Camp, ruling that the case was prematurely filed and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
In a ruling delivered by Lucy N. Gacheru, the court dismissed a Notice of Motion dated August 8, 2025, in which petitioner Dr Joel Maitamei Ole Dapash had sought conservatory orders to restrain the opening and operation of the luxury safari camp within the Maasai Mara National Reserve.
The petitioner argued that the construction of the camp near the Sand River wildebeest migration corridor violated constitutional provisions on environmental protection, public participation, and the safeguarding of cultural heritage. He further contended that the development contravened a presidential moratorium issued on July 24, 2023, which halted new lodge developments within the reserve.
However, the court noted that the camp was officially opened on August 15, 2025, and had been operational since then, rendering the application to stop its opening overtaken by events.
“The prayer to restrain the opening and operation of the camp has been overtaken by events,” Justice Gacheru ruled, adding that conservatory orders could not issue in circumstances where the impugned activity had already commenced.
The judge found that the petitioner had failed to meet the legal threshold for the grant of conservatory orders. Evidence placed before the court showed that the project had undergone a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), inter-agency consultations, and site inspections, culminating in the issuance of an EIA licence on May 14, 2024.
Justice Gacheru further observed that the petitioner had, in his own submissions, conceded that the regulatory framework under the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA) had been properly followed and that public participation had taken place.
On the question of jurisdiction, the court upheld a Preliminary Objection raised by the Narok County Government. The judge held that disputes relating to wildlife management and environmental licensing must first be presented before the relevant statutory bodies.
“Where Parliament has provided a clear dispute resolution mechanism, parties are obligated to exhaust those avenues before approaching this court,” Justice Gacheru stated, underscoring the doctrine of exhaustion.
She noted that under Section 117 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and Section 129 of EMCA, such disputes should initially be ventilated before bodies such as the National Environment Tribunal. In this case, the petitioner had not invoked those mechanisms prior to filing a constitutional petition.
As a result, the court upheld the Preliminary Objection, struck out the petition in its entirety, and awarded costs to the respondents.
In her final orders, Justice Gacheru ruled that the court “lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter due to the petitioner’s failure to exhaust alternative statutory remedies,” bringing the case to a close.
