Why court rejected bid to withdraw case against Maasai Mara hotel

Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Maasai Mara. [Courtesy]

The High Court has declined to allow withdrawal of a petition challenging a proposed development in the Maasai Mara ecosystem, ruling that the case raises weighty constitutional and environmental questions of public interest that must be heard and determined on their merits.

Justice Lucy Gacheru, held that although the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, commonly referred to as the Mutunga Rules, permit a petitioner to seek withdrawal of a matter by issuing notice to the court, such withdrawal is not automatic and remains subject to judicial discretion.

The petition was filed on August 8, 2025, amid heightened public debate over a proposed luxury development by Mara/Ritz-linked entities within the Maasai Mara area. The project drew national and international scrutiny following allegations that it would block a critical wildebeest migratory corridor, potentially disrupting one of the iconic wildlife migration.

On Wednesday, a conservationist who had moved to court seeking to halt the operations of a luxury safari camp in the Maasai Mara National Reserve applied to withdraw the case, stating that his concerns had been addressed following consultations with the parties involved.

Joel Meitamei Olol Dapash filed a notice of withdrawal at the Environment and Land Court in Narok, seeking to discontinue a petition he lodged against Marriott International Inc, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Lazizi Mara Limited, the Narok County Government and the National Environment Management Authority.

Justice Gacheru noted that the notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner was strongly opposed by the respondents and proposed interested parties, including Lazizi, the developer associated with the project.

Senior Counsel Kiragu Kimani told the court that despite his client’s compliance with all regulatory and statutory requirements, the developer had been portrayed negatively both locally and internationally. He argued that the matter should proceed to its logical conclusion to allow the court to either vindicate his client or hold it accountable.

The judge observed that the central issues raised in the petition, particularly the alleged obstruction of a wildlife migratory corridor, are matters of immense public interest that have generated national concern. She emphasised that courts must also guard against abuse of the judicial process, especially in public interest litigation.

Justice Gacheru further noted that although the petition was filed in August, some respondents indicated they only became aware of the proceedings through social media, underscoring the public attention the case has attracted.

In declining the notice of withdrawal, the court ruled that the petition could not be terminated at this stage. “This is a public interest litigation which has raised serious environmental concerns. The court will not allow the notice of withdrawal,” the judge held.

The court allowed the joinder of the Law Society of Kenya and the East Africa Wildlife Society as interested parties, noting that other parties with a stake in the matter remain at liberty to apply for joinder.

Justice Gacheru urged Lazizi to hold in abeyance its applications for contempt, warning that such proceedings would delay the hearing of the substantive issues. She advised all parties to focus on the main suit.

The court directed that the Notice of Motion dated August 8, 2024, seeking conservatory orders and the empanelment of a three-judge bench, be heard expeditiously.

The matter is scheduled for mention on February 10 for further directions.