by FaithAnne Mwaura
A luxury safari camp linked to global hospitality giant Marriott has won another major court battle after the Environment and Land Court cleared it to continue operating in the Maasai Mara, throwing out a second lawsuit seeking to halt its activities over environmental concerns.
The Environment and Land Court ruled that the case filed by the East Africa Tour Guide Drivers Association against Ritz-Carlton Company LLC and Marriott International Inc was premature because the petitioners failed to first present their complaint before the National Environment Tribunal, as required by law.
Justice Lucy Gacheru held that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter after the association bypassed the legally prescribed dispute resolution process.
The ruling is the second victory for the luxury JW Marriott Mara Safari Camp after an earlier petition filed by conservationist Dr Joel Meitamei Olol Dapash was similarly struck out on the same grounds.
Justice Gacheru further declined to suspend the hotel's operations, noting that the multi-billion-shilling project had already been completed and opened to guests after obtaining approvals from the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), the Narok County Government and other relevant agencies.
"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," Justice Gacheru ruled.
She added: "Public interest therefore militates against the suspension of an operational development through interlocutory orders before the legality of those approvals has been conclusively determined."
The tour guides' association had sought sweeping orders to stop the hotel from advertising, marketing, receiving bookings or conducting commercial tourism activities while also seeking the cancellation of its licences.
The group also wanted the court to compel the developers to restore and protect the Sand River wildlife corridor, arguing that the project was contributing to environmental degradation and interfering with access to the area.
However, the hotel's owners maintained that the claims lacked factual and scientific backing.
Through their lawyers, Ritz-Carlton and Marriott argued that there is no gazetted or scientifically recognised wildebeest migration corridor passing through the project site.
The court also heard that the safari camp was deliberately designed with open spaces, ecological buffers and low-impact structures to allow wildlife movement while minimising environmental disruption.
According to the developers, post-construction environmental audits confirmed that the project complied with all mitigation measures outlined in its Environmental Impact Assessment, with no evidence of pollution, habitat fragmentation, ecological disturbance or enforcement action by regulators.
The developers further argued that all statutory approvals had been secured before construction began, including environmental licences and planning approvals issued by the relevant government agencies.
The latest ruling mirrors Justice Gacheru's earlier decision to dismiss a petition by Dr Dapash, in which she found that the court's jurisdiction had been "prematurely invoked" because the petitioner had failed to exhaust the dispute resolution process before the National Environment Tribunal.
With the second case now struck out, the luxury safari camp will continue operating as legal challenges over its environmental approvals remain unresolved through the appropriate statutory channels.
