The Environment and Land Court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a petition challenging the construction and operation of the Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara Safari Camp, striking out the entire case on grounds that the petitioner failed to exhaust alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
In a ruling delivered on February 26, 2026 Lady Justice Lucy Gacheru upheld a preliminary objection by the Narok county government and The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and dismissed the petition filed by activist Dr. Joel Meitaemi Ole Dapash, with costs awarded to the respondents.
The court found that the petitioner had contravened the doctrine of exhaustion by approaching the Environment and Land Court directly, instead of first referring the matter to statutory bodies established under Kenyan law.
“Having considered the submissions by the 4th and 5th Respondents, the Petition in general and the cited provisions of law, this court finds and holds that the jurisdiction of this court was prematurely invoked by the Petitioner because he failed to raise his grievances under Section 117 of WCMA (Wildlife Conservation and Management Act), and Section 129 of EMCA (Environmental Management and Coordination Act),” the judge ruled.
Section 117 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act requires that disputes relating to wildlife management, protection, or conservation first be referred to the lowest possible structure under the devolved system of government, including traditional resolution mechanisms. Section 129 of EMCA establishes the National Environment Tribunal as the appropriate body to hear appeals regarding the grant or refusal of licences.
“If the petitioner was aggrieved with the grant of building approvals, he ought to have appealed to the relevant committee under the Physical Planning Act or challenged the licence before the National Environment Tribunal,” the judge said.
Dr. Dapash had moved to court on August 8, 2025, seeking conservatory orders to restrain the Narok County Government, the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), and three other respondents from opening or operationalizing the luxury camp located along the Kenya-Tanzania border within the Maasai Mara National Reserve.
The petitioner argued that the construction of the facility, scheduled to open on August 15, 2025, was illegal and violated constitutional rights, including the protection of cultural property and conservation of natural resources.
He contended that the camp was built within a critical wildebeest migration corridor along the Sand River and that local Maasai communities were not adequately consulted.
Dr. Dapash also alleged that the development violated a presidential moratorium issued on July 24, 2023, which had stopped construction of new lodges in the Game Reserve.
The developer, Lazizi Mara limited countered that all necessary approvals had been obtained, including an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) licence issued on May 14, 2024.
The court was presented with evidence showing that the project had undergone public participation, inter-agency consultations, and site inspections.
NEMA confirmed that the camp was situated more than 15 kilometers from the nearest wildlife migratory corridor following an audit conducted in August 2025.
Narok County Government and NEMA also raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction.
They cited Section 117 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and Sections 125 and 129 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), which require that such disputes first be referred to the National Environment Tribunal or other statutory bodies before approaching the court.
In her ruling, Justice Gacheru ruled that the petitioner himself conceded during submissions that the respondents had demonstrated compliance with the law.
“The Applicant submitted that upon review of the Replying Affidavits particularly by the 3rd Respondent, he has ascertained that a Comprehensive EIA Project Report was submitted to NEMA,” the judge ruled.
The court found that the project had followed the proper regulatory framework, including a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment process, Inter-agency consultations and technical evaluations and site inspections
The project had also been issued with an EIA licence on May 14, 2024 and a lawful variation granted on October 31, 2024
On the issue of public participation, the court ruled that evidence of various meetings, particularly one held on April 18, 2024, where community concerns were incorporated into mitigation measures.
“Conservatory orders are meant to preserve the status quo and protect the subject matter of the petition until it is fully heard and determined. The event sought to be prevented has already occurred,” the court ruled.
The petitioner had also sought to have an expanded bench of not less than three judges hear the matter under Article 165(4) of the Constitution, arguing that the petition raised substantial questions of law.
However, during submissions, Dr. Dapash abandoned this prayer, conceding that the matter did not raise any unresolved, novel, or complex constitutional questions requiring an expanded bench.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
