Luxury hotel JW Marriot Mara Safari Camp has been cleared to continue operations after the Environment Court struck out a second case filed to challenge its construction and running in the Masai Mara.

Environment and Land Court Judge Lucy said the case filed by a tour guide and drivers association was defective as they had jumped the gun in their case against Ritz-Carlton Company LLC and Marriot International Inc.

The Environment and Lands Court judge observed that although the law was clear on the procedure to follow – to first file complaints before the National Environment Tribunal – the association nevertheless chose to bypass it.

As a result, she said, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the East Africa Tour Guide Drivers Association’s case.

Justice Gicheru added that she could not grant the orders sought by the drivers because billions of shillings had already been spent on the facility after it received approvals from authorities, including the Narok County Government and the National Environment Management Authority (Nema).

Justice Gicheru agreed with Carlton and Marriot lawyers that it would be in vain to block development or advertising about the facility as it had already been built and operational.

She was of the view that the relevant authorities had considered wildlife conservation and proper planning before they issued clearance.

The judge said the court could not halt the hotel’s operations before determining whether the approvals were lawful.

“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. Public interest therefore militates against the suspension of an operational development through interlocutory orders before the legality of those approvals has been conclusively determined,” said Justice Gacheru.

In the case, the drivers’ association had urged the court to bar the hotel, or its employees from Advertising, marketing, receiving bookings for, or operating any commercial tourism activities around the facility.

At the same time, they asked the court to also bar them from interfering with, intimidating, or harassing the association, their members, or any other person accessing the Sand River wildlife corridor.

At the same time, they sought cancellation of the licenses issued to the hotel. The court was also urged to force them to take immediate steps to prevent further environmental degradation and blockage of the Sand River wildlife corridor.

In opposing the suit, Ritz-Carton and JW Marriot urged the court to strike out the case, arguing that the case was similar to one filed by a conservationist, Dr Joel Meitamei Olol Dapash, which equally suffered the same fate.

At the same time, the two firms argued that they had been erroneously added to the case as there was no direct order or issue raised against them.

They asserted that the allegation that the camp was obstructing the wildebeest migration route was scientifically and factually unfounded since no gazetted, recognized or scientifically documented wildlife migratory corridor passed through the project site.

The court heard that it had confirmed that the camp was not situated within any migration corridor, and did not obstruct wildlife movement.

At the same time, the court heard that the camp had been designed with open spaces, ecological buffers and low-impact structures intended to co-exist with wildlife movement, and that post-construction environmental audits had confirmed compliance with all environmental safeguards, implementation of all mitigation measures recommended in the Environmental Impact Assessment and the absence of pollution, habitat fragmentation, ecological disturbance or any enforcement action by the relevant regulatory authorities.

In the first case, which was struck out by the same court, Justice Gacheru said that Dr Olol Dapash had jumped the gun as he was required to file his complaint before the environment tribunal, before moving to the court.

“This court has not seen any of the above exceptions in this petition. The court finds that the jurisdiction of this court has been prematurely invoked and being persuaded by various authorities cited by the 4th and 5th respondents, the court finds that the preliminary objection herein is merited. The court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this petition for contravening the doctrine of exhaustion,” ruled Justice Gacheru.

Olol Dapash had initially sought to discontinue the entire suit he lodged on August 8, 2025.

In the petition, he had sued Marriott International Inc, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Lazizi Mara Limited, the County Government of Narok and Nema.

Lawyer Martin Munyu, appearing for Marriott and the Ritz- Carlton, said his clients wanted to be discharged from the proceedings.

Advocate Kiragu Kimani, appearing for Lazizi Mara Limited, noted that the case presented an unusual situation. 

“There is an unusual scenario where the petitioner wants to withdraw, but other parties want the matter settled once and for all. Where a petition is presented based on public interest, Rule 27(1) of the Mutunga Rules gives the court the ultimate authority to determine whether a withdrawal should be allowed,” Kimani said.

He argued that the case was misconceived and an abuse of the court process. 

The lawyer said there was evidence to show that all required processes and approvals were done from 2023 when his clients sought from the Narok County government a place to construct a camp.

The senior lawyer asserted that the firm then got all relevant approvals, such as approval from Water Resources Authority, through a letter dated December 10, 2024, carried out Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which it submitted on April 18, 2024, and the required fees as required by the law.

He told the court that his client got an EIS licence on May 14, 2024, adding that before commencement of the construction, it submitted the application for approval of the architectural drawings for the camps, bridges and ancillary facilities.