The operator of the Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara safari camp, a luxury hotel charging guests $3,675 (Sh476,647) per night, has opposed the withdrawal of a petition seeking its closure, arguing that only a full hearing would clear its name after months of damaging public scrutiny.
Lazizi Mara Limited contends that allowing the petitioner to abandon the case would leave unresolved allegations that have harmed the reputation and commercial viability of one of Kenya’s most high-profile luxury tourism investments.
The request to withdraw the case was presented before the Environment and Land Court in Narok on Wednesday after conservation activist Joel Meitamei Ole Dapash, the petitioner, instructed his lawyers to file a formal notice.
The petition, which also named global hospitality brands JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton as respondents, alleged that the camp obstructs wildlife migration corridors and violates constitutional protections for ecosystems.
However, the petitioner’s advocate informed the court that discussions among stakeholders since the filing of the petition had led to progress in addressing the concerns.
“We received instructions from the petitioner that there have been constructive conversations between various parties regarding the concerns raised,” the advocate said. “He is satisfied that the issues are being resolved and has instructed us to withdraw the petition.”
The advocate urged the court to mark the matter as withdrawn without imposing costs.
However, Lazizi Mara Limited opposed the withdrawal, insisting that the case proceeds to a full hearing to clear its name after months of negative publicity.
The company’s advocate warned that withdrawing the case would leave damaging allegations unresolved.
The Lazizi Mara lawyer informed the court that his client had faced prolonged vilification due to claims of environmental violations.
“The petition was filed in August, but we were served three months later,” the advocate said.
The court will review the withdrawal notice and submissions from all parties before issuing a decision.
“The matter has been debated publicly for months, and my client has been vilified not just locally but globally,” he added.
He argued that since the case was filed in the public interest, the court should not permit a simple withdrawal without scrutinizing the claims.
Lazizi seeks a judicial determination confirming that no laws were violated in developing and operating the camp.
“We want the court to rule on whether our client is at fault. Otherwise, these allegations will continue to cast a shadow over our operations,” its advocate added and urged the judge to prioritise pending applications, including one seeking conservatory orders and contempt of court proceedings against the petitioner.
The legal dispute follows a statement by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) two weeks earlier, clarifying that the luxury camp does not obstruct the wildebeest migration path, contrary to claims in the petition.
The Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara camp, operated by Lazizi Mara Limited under the Marriott International brand, opened in August and positions Kenya as a premier destination in the global luxury safari market.
The dispute centers on allegations that the camp was unlawfully constructed and poses ecological risks to the Maasai Mara ecosystem. In court filings, Lazizi Mara maintained that it secured all necessary approvals from regulatory bodies, including the National Environment Management Authority (Nema), Narok County Government, and the Water Resources Authority.
The company emphasized that the project sits on leased county land, not within the Maasai Mara National Reserve.
Lazizi argued that the case threatens jobs, community revenues, and Kenya’s reputation as a premium tourism destination. The facility employs over 200 people and expects to contribute billions of shillings in taxes and tourism-related revenue.
Despite Lazizi’s assurances, environmental groups remain uneasy. A lawyer representing the East African Wildlife Society as an interested party opposed the petition’s withdrawal, arguing that environmental disputes should not be abandoned lightly.
“An environmental matter like this cannot simply be withdrawn. What happens to the public interest?” he questioned.
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) also sought to join the case as an interested party, citing Constitutional provisions allowing judicial discretion in such matters.
“Nothing prevents my client from filing a fresh petition if necessary. We are prepared to proceed if permitted,” the LSK lawyer said.
Other respondents took differing positions. The Narok County Government did not object to the withdrawal and urged the court to terminate the petition.
In response, the petitioner’s lawyer reiterated that forcing a satisfied petitioner to continue would abuse court processes.
“This court cannot compel a party to proceed once their concerns have been addressed,” he argued.
