Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: The Unresolved Case of Dandavare Wetland, Buhera

BUHERA:The legal maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” encapsulates a fundamental principle of jurisprudence: when judicial remedies are not enforced within a reasonable time, the very purpose of justice is defeated. In the aftermath of World Wetlands Day 2026, this writer reflects on the protracted and troubling case of the degraded Dandavare Wetland in Makumbe Village, Buhera , a case that epitomizes the consequences of delayed and unenforced justice. On 23 March 2015, the High Court of Zimbabwe delivered a landmark judgment in favour of villagers who sought to reclaim and protect Dandavare Wetland from unlawful occupation.

The occupation stemmed from the actions of William Mhere, reportedly a bodyguard to the late Chief Shepard Chengeta of Makumbe. Leveraging perceived influence and authority, Mhere allegedly parcelled out portions of the protected wetland to settlers , some drawn from as far afield as Bocha in Manicaland Province after collecting money from them. As a consequence, more than fifty (50) families settled on what had been an ecologically intact wetland, leading to significant degradation.

This encroachment undermined decades of conservation grounded in indigenous knowledge systems. According to Village Head Abhia Makumbe, “This wetland sustained our livelihoods even during drought periods, providing reliable year-round water.” Recognizing that pursuing recourse through traditional courts could present a conflict of interest due to Mhere’s influence, Marume Village escalated the matter to the High Court in 2013, only months after the invasion. Amos Marume played a pivotal role in mobilizing financial contributions and coordinating legal representation.

[paywall]

Each household in Marume Village contributed funds toward litigation , a demonstration of collective environmental stewardship and civic resolve. The High Court ruling of 23 March 2015 culminated in an eviction order against the settlers. However, more than a decade later, the critical question remains: why has the court order not been enforced?

A court order is a legally binding directive. Compliance is mandatory, not discretionary. Yet, in this case, the judgment appears to have been openly defied.

Reports indicate that Mhere continues to benefit from activities on the wetland, while environmental degradation persists. Invasive species have proliferated, water tables have declined, and the ecological integrity of the wetland has been severely compromised. The Community Water Alliance (CWA), a grassroots civil society organization, has documented multiple environmental impacts arising from the encroachment.

These include eutrophication, biodiversity loss, altered hydrological regimes, and disruption of natural water recharge systems. The organization further notes that attempts at ecological restoration have been frustrated by the continued presence of settlers, reportedly affiliated with the St. Nimrod Johanne Marange apostolic sect.

From a legal standpoint, the appropriate remedy in circumstances of deliberate non-compliance is the institution of contempt of court proceedings. Such proceedings would compel adherence through judicial sanctions and reaffirm the supremacy of the law. Failure to enforce court orders not only emboldens environmental offenders but also sets a dangerous precedent that judicial pronouncements can be ignored without consequence.

[/paywall]