NAIROBI, Kenya, Dec 18 – Developer Lazizi Mara Limited has formally objected to the withdrawal of a high-profile environmental petition challenging the development of the Ritz-Carlton Safari Camp in the Maasai Mara.
Mara Limited urges the Environment and Land Court to interrogate the withdrawal in the public interest.
The petition, filed earlier this year, raised concerns over environmental compliance, land use, and the potential impact of the luxury development on wildlife migration corridors and community rights.
It attracted widespread local and international attention, placing the developer and associated hospitality brands under intense public scrutiny.
When the matter came up before the Environment and Land Court in Narok on December 17, the petitioner’s lawyer informed the Court that they had been instructed to withdraw the petition.
He stated that a notice of withdrawal had been filed and served, explaining that the decision followed engagements with the respondents and that the petitioner was now satisfied that the issues raised in the case had been addressed or were in the process of being addressed.
However, Lazizi Mara Limited, through its legal team, strongly opposed the withdrawal.
Speaking on behalf of the developer, Advocate Ezra Makori submitted that the petition was brought as a public interest matter and therefore could not be withdrawn at the unilateral discretion of the petitioner.
He argued that the Court retains an overriding duty to interrogate the propriety of such a withdrawal to guard against abuse of the court process, particularly where allegations of environmental harm and public concern have already been widely ventilated.
He further urged the Court to first determine the pending application for conservatory orders, noting that serious issues had been raised and extensively debated in the public domain, with significant reputational consequences for the developer.
Lazizi’s legal team maintained that allowing the petition to be withdrawn without a substantive determination would leave damaging allegations unresolved and continue to cast doubt over the legality of the project.
The developer has consistently maintained that the safari camp was lawfully developed and fully compliant with environmental and regulatory requirements.
Other parties to the proceedings also addressed the Court, with some supporting the withdrawal while others emphasized the public interest nature of the dispute and the need for judicial scrutiny before the matter could be brought to an end.
The Court reserved its decision on whether to allow the withdrawal and directed that a ruling would be delivered on Thursday at 2:00 pm.
The ruling is expected to clarify the extent to which public interest litigation can be withdrawn once filed, and whether courts must first address substantive issues where broader environmental and public accountability concerns arise.