Why Lazizi Mara opposed the withdrawal of Ritz-Carlton Mara case withdrawal
Rift Valley
By
Kamau Muthoni and Fred Kagonye
| Dec 19, 2025
The push for a full hearing by the developer of a getaway resort at the Masai Mara, which sparked a legal battle, led the court to dismiss an activist's application to withdraw the case.
Lazizi Mara put forth a spirited argument that the case filed by Meitamei Olol Dapash should not be withdrawn, as it would leave the dispute around the development in the national park hanging.
Mr Dapash had told Environment and Lands Court judge Lucy Gicheru that he wanted to drop the case, arguing that the hotel's explanation of his concerns was satisfactory.
Nevertheless, Lazizi Mara strongly opposed the withdrawal.
READ MORE
State to cut debt by off loading large projects to private sector
Insurers urged to rethink PSV's high-risk model
It is a bad year: Rising costs dim X-mas cheer for many Kenyans
Boon for exporters as Kenya inches closer to China tariff deal
Closing Kenya's construction skills gap for future-ready workforce
CEOs see Trump tariffs, high taxes hurting growth in 2026
Christmas comes early for Naivas Kikwetu winners
Giant society turns to land lease to grow revenues
Flower growers halt expansion projects over tax refund delay
Lazizi’s lawyers argued that the case had to proceed to a full trial owing to the public interest implications, and these issues deserved to be heard.
They said that their client had complied with all requirements from both the national and county governments, but had been subjected to negative portrayal locally and internationally due to the petition.
The lawyers said that allowing the withdrawal of the petition at this stage would leave the allegations unresolved and that withdrawal would never address the reputational harm suffered in the absence of a judicial finding.
Dapash sued Lazizi Mara Limited, Marriott International, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Narok county government and the National Environment Management Authority (Nema).
In the case, Dapash sought to have the luxury safari camp closed, citing environmental concerns. He claimed that it obstructs wildlife migratory corridors and violates constitutional protections relating to ecosystems.
Dapash also questioned the approval process for the construction works and the timelines, asking the Environment court to stop the facility’s opening and operation.
He alleged that the safari camp had been constructed without proper community engagement, raising concerns among conservation groups and Indigenous representatives.
He said that many conservation groups argued that unchecked tourism development could lead to ecological degradation and the displacement of local communities.
On the other hand, the court heard that he had not served Lazizi, Marriott, Narok county and Nema. The respondents claimed that they had not been served and only learned of the case on social media, where the matter had been extensively debated publicly with different narratives that were not part of the case.
In the end, Justice Gacheru agreed with their submissions that they were seeking a substantive determination so that they would “either be vindicated or held accountable through due process,” rather than leaving them in limbo following the dispute.
“This is a public interest litigation, which has raised serious environmental concerns. The court will not allow the notice of withdrawal,” said Justice Gacheru.
The judge held that the case raised weighty constitutional and environmental questions of public interest, and the only way to address them was to hear the case and decide on its merits.
She added that the withdrawal of public interest cases is a right, but needed oversight from judicial officers to safeguard the integrity of the court's process and prevent abuse through case filing and withdrawals.
“Given the nature of the petition and the grave concerns raised regarding the alleged blocking of a migratory corridor, this is a public interest litigation,” Justice Gacheru stated, adding that the petition raised allegations touching on the alleged blocking of wildebeest migration routes.
According to the judge, claims raised by Dapash went beyond the interests of the immediate parties and had broader environmental, conservation and public trust considerations.