Disputed facts delay Teek's lawsuit
In a landmark case, a former judge is hell-bent on proving that the state owes him N$6.8 million, after its violated his constitutional rights.
Former judge Pio Teek, who is suing the state for N$6.8 million, and Nixon Marcus, who is representing a host of government respondents in the matter, will have to come together and agree on the disputed facts, before the matter can proceed on 14 March.
“There is need for cooperation. You are not enemies. You are trying to help the court. I will advise you that the matter should be referred to a status hearing,” Deputy Judge President Hosea Angula said on Tuesday, while addressing the two opposing camps.
The two parties had earlier conceded to the postponement for them to redraft the stated case.
Teek had wanted the court to hear arguments about whether the conduct of the defendants, who include the state president, the government, the minister of justice and the attorney-general, had violated his constitutional rights and whether this can be translated into damages and what the quantum should be.
“The court can order that evidence be led to establish this,” Teek argued.
The former judge is seeking an order for payment of N$6.8 million as the presumptive damages and compensation, as well as remuneration or income and benefits he would have received as Supreme Court judge since November 2005 to the date of the lawsuit judgement.
Teek wants this to be considered as a barometer for the calculation and determination of a fair and reasonable amount for the damages and compensation he is entitled to.
He has accused the state of the gross violation of his constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the denigration and injury of his dignity, while causing him emotional distress, trauma, pain, suffering and humiliation.
Teek was arrested in 2006 and subsequently tried in connection with eight charges, including child abduction and rape, to which he pleaded not guilty. He was acquitted by South African Judge Ronnie Bosielo in 2007 on all counts and discharged.
The state's application for leave to appeal was heard in the same year and dismissed with costs, but a further petition for leave to appeal was granted on 21 July 2008.
The appeal was heard in early 2009 and in April of the same year, the Supreme Court set aside Teeks' acquittal and discharge, and referred the matter back to the High Court for a retrial.
Teek instituted a civil claim for damages against Bloemfontein justices PE Streicher, KK Muthiyane and Fritz DJ Brand on the grounds that their appeal judgment was irregular.
The justices were appointed between 30 October 2007 and 28 April 2009 as judges of the Supreme Court of Namibia, to preside over the state appeal.
“The court's conduct was corrupt. It was incompetent, imprudent and irrational, actuated by malice, prejudice or bias and collusion with the state, with direct intent to secure my conviction,” Teek argued at the time.
He added that they conduct was against the weight and conspectus of the evidence adduced by the state.
According to him, the respondents' failure to facilitate and the serve a summons on a South African judge, in connection with his matter, was unlawful and intentional.
Teek stated in his court papers that the argument that his action is “premature or moot” is ill-conceived, ill-advised and fallacious, and in principle an abuse of the due process of law.
“It's a despicable abuse of power and public funds, with impunity. It is proof of their utter incompetence and institutionalised political arrogance, a cancerous tumour to be uprooted and sanctioned by the honourable court with the imposition of severe punitive financial compensation,” he said.
FRED GOEIEMAN
“There is need for cooperation. You are not enemies. You are trying to help the court. I will advise you that the matter should be referred to a status hearing,” Deputy Judge President Hosea Angula said on Tuesday, while addressing the two opposing camps.
The two parties had earlier conceded to the postponement for them to redraft the stated case.
Teek had wanted the court to hear arguments about whether the conduct of the defendants, who include the state president, the government, the minister of justice and the attorney-general, had violated his constitutional rights and whether this can be translated into damages and what the quantum should be.
“The court can order that evidence be led to establish this,” Teek argued.
The former judge is seeking an order for payment of N$6.8 million as the presumptive damages and compensation, as well as remuneration or income and benefits he would have received as Supreme Court judge since November 2005 to the date of the lawsuit judgement.
Teek wants this to be considered as a barometer for the calculation and determination of a fair and reasonable amount for the damages and compensation he is entitled to.
He has accused the state of the gross violation of his constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the denigration and injury of his dignity, while causing him emotional distress, trauma, pain, suffering and humiliation.
Teek was arrested in 2006 and subsequently tried in connection with eight charges, including child abduction and rape, to which he pleaded not guilty. He was acquitted by South African Judge Ronnie Bosielo in 2007 on all counts and discharged.
The state's application for leave to appeal was heard in the same year and dismissed with costs, but a further petition for leave to appeal was granted on 21 July 2008.
The appeal was heard in early 2009 and in April of the same year, the Supreme Court set aside Teeks' acquittal and discharge, and referred the matter back to the High Court for a retrial.
Teek instituted a civil claim for damages against Bloemfontein justices PE Streicher, KK Muthiyane and Fritz DJ Brand on the grounds that their appeal judgment was irregular.
The justices were appointed between 30 October 2007 and 28 April 2009 as judges of the Supreme Court of Namibia, to preside over the state appeal.
“The court's conduct was corrupt. It was incompetent, imprudent and irrational, actuated by malice, prejudice or bias and collusion with the state, with direct intent to secure my conviction,” Teek argued at the time.
He added that they conduct was against the weight and conspectus of the evidence adduced by the state.
According to him, the respondents' failure to facilitate and the serve a summons on a South African judge, in connection with his matter, was unlawful and intentional.
Teek stated in his court papers that the argument that his action is “premature or moot” is ill-conceived, ill-advised and fallacious, and in principle an abuse of the due process of law.
“It's a despicable abuse of power and public funds, with impunity. It is proof of their utter incompetence and institutionalised political arrogance, a cancerous tumour to be uprooted and sanctioned by the honourable court with the imposition of severe punitive financial compensation,” he said.
FRED GOEIEMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article