A luxury safari camp at the centre of a heated environmental dispute has secured a major legal victory after the Environment and Land Court in Narok dismissed a case that sought to halt its operations, with the judge ruling that the matter should first have been taken before the National Environment Tribunal.
The case had been filed by the East Africa Tour Guides Drivers Association, which wanted the court to stop the Rit Carlton Maasai Mara Safari Camp from continuing with its activities, including marketing, advertising and accepting reservations from guests.
The association also sought orders directing the County Government of Narok and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) to suspend or withdraw all permits, approvals and licences issued for the development.
According to the petitioners, the camp was constructed along a key wildlife movement route used by nearly 1.5 million wildebeest, zebras and other animals during the annual migration.
They argued that the project had disrupted wildlife movement, split habitats and caused lasting environmental harm within one of the world's most important conservation areas.
“The petitioner also averred that the Safari Camp comprises permanent concrete structures erected within a protected riparian one along the Sand River, thereby obstructing established wildlife access routes, and narrowing a protected migration corridor between the Maasai Mara National Reserve and the Serengeti National Parkand that the continued operation of the facility has resulted in habitat fragmentation, pollution,disturbance of a vital riparian ecosystem and degradation of a globally significant esco World Heritage.”
The petition further claimed that the development proceeded without a lawful Environmental Impact Assessment and without adequate public participation involving affected stakeholders.
The respondents, among them La Mara Limited, Rit Carlton Company LLC and Marriott International INC, challenged the case and asked the court to dismiss it.
They maintained that all legal requirements were followed before construction began and argued that the petition had been filed before the available dispute resolution procedures under environmental laws had been exhausted.
The developers told the court that a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out and that NEMA issued Environmental Impact Assessment Licence No. NemaIA PSL2348 on May 14, 2024.
They also disputed claims that the project sits on a recognised wildlife migration route, saying there is no gazetted or scientifically established corridor passing through the site. According to the respondents, the camp incorporates ecological buffers, open areas and low-impact designs intended to allow wildlife to move freely around the area.
During the proceedings, Kenya Wildlife Service Director General Erustus Kanga stated that the Maasai Mara National Reserve is managed by the Narok County Government and not KWS.
Kanga explained that because the reserve falls under county management, KWS is not responsible for issuing licences, permits or approvals for developments within the area.
In her ruling, Justice Lucy Gacheru said the dispute largely revolved around approvals, licences and planning decisions that are governed by specialised legal frameworks established under environmental and land-use laws.
“The petitioner has not demonstrated that the National Environment Tribunal, the statutory mechanisms under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act or the Physical and Land e Planning Act were unavailable, ineffective or incapable of addressing the grievances relating to the impugned licences, approvals and permits,” the court ruled.
“Accordingly, the court finds and holds that the present petition was prematurely presented before this court and offends the doctrine of exhaustion.”
The judge further observed that the project had already attracted substantial investment and that the agencies tasked with overseeing environmental protection, wildlife conservation and physical planning had carried out their responsibilities before granting the approvals now being challenged.