Court rejects petition to shut down Ritz-Carlton Masai Mara Safari Camp

In a ruling delivered by Lady Justice Lucy Gacheru on Thursday, July 2, the court determined that the activist group behind the lawsuit did not exhaust the specialised environmental tribunals set up by law and instead filed a court petition. 

The legal battle centered around the Ritz-Carlton Mara Safari Camp, an ultra-luxury lodge built along the Sand River near the Kenya-Tanzania border, which officially opened its doors in August 2025.

The lawsuit was filed by the East Africa Tour Guides Drivers Association which claimed that the concrete structures of the luxury camp were built illegally within a protected river zone.

According to the tour drivers, the lodge blocks an ancient wildlife highway used by 1.5 million wildebeests, zebras, and elephants during the world-famous Great Migration between Kenya’s Maasai Mara and Tanzania’s Serengeti ecosystem.

They also argued the project went ahead despite a presidential freeze on new developments in the area.

However, the owners of the safari camp, Lazizi Mara Limited, appealed, citing that they had a valid environmental license and a proper exemption from the government to build the camp, which employs over 200 local staff.

While issuing the ruling, Justice Gacheru explained that even though the tour drivers framed their case as a human rights and constitutional issue, it was a regular dispute over business permits and building licenses.

"...the Court observed that in considering conservatory orders, the Court must always weigh the public interest and the constitutional values likely to be affected by either granting or refusing the orders sought. In the present case, this Court is persuaded that the public interest favours maintaining the prevailing state of affairs, given that the Petitioner never disputed the construction of the project from inception," read part of the ruling. 

Prior to the ruling, the tour drivers and other interested groups requested that Justice Gacheru step down from the case, accusing her of bias because she had dismissed a similar case against the resort the previous year.

The judge rejected the demand, labeling it as "forum shopping," a term used when litigants try to swap judges in the hopes of finding one who will give them a friendlier ruling. She noted that the petitioners had participated in the case for months and only complained when the case was not going in their favour. 

"This Court consequently finds that the applications amount to forum shopping and constitute an abuse of the court process. To accede to such applications in the absence of any objective evidence of bias would encourage litigants dissatisfied with previous judicial decisions to seek the disqualification of judges in the hope of obtaining a different judicial forum," Justice Gacheru ruled.