Pio Teek sues for N$6 million
Retired judge Pio Teek is suing the justice minister and the Ombudsman for failing to comply with constitutional and statutory provisions, incurring him damages to the tune of N$6 million.
He charges that due to the minister and Ombudsman's malicious and undue lengthy delays, and unlawful failure to speedily serve the combined summons against the South African appeal judges Piet Streicher, Kenneth Mthiyane and Fritz Brand - appointed as Acting Judges of Appeal of Namibia's Supreme Court, grossly violated his constitutional right.
The attorney-general in September 2010, in response to the request of the Registrar of High Court to facilitate the service of summons on the said judges, said it could not be processed due to non-compliance with Rule 5 of the High of Court rules and in the absence of legislative framework.
Judge Elton Hoff on 18 June 2010 removed Teek's appeal from the roll pursuant to Rule 5.
“The defendants' unlawful actions, conduct and decisions were taken with the settled malicious intent to prevent me from prosecuting the action against me, and to be compensated by the said judges,” Teek argued.
He emphasised that the defendants' unlawful conduct is the material and direct cause of his decision to withdraw and abandon his civil action against the South African judges.
He said the legal consequence of their actions are that he was denied the due process of law, natural justice and due care, as well as fair, reasonable, adequate and speedy remedial actions pursuant to statutory and common law.
He claims he was denied economic advancement and happiness in violation of his rights and that this resulted in severe mental anguish. Coupled with the resultant financial loss, he justified the amount he cited.
The said judges heard the State's appeal against Teek's discharge by South African Judge Ronnie Bosielo in 2006 on child abduction, rape and other charges and referred the case for retrial.
The State claimed that Bosielo erred when he found that they did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Teek was guilty and also criticised the manner in which the police handled the investigation.
Teek alleges that he pleaded to the Ombudsman for remedial assistance but that this was to no avail and that the latter also flagrantly ignored requests to meet him.
When, on 10 June 2013 the Ombudsman did not reply to his request to attend to his complaint, he lodged a complaint against the Ombudsman before the Judicial Service Commission.
Senior Council of Johannesburg Bar, Advocate Micheal Kuber, appearing on behalf of the justice minister said Teek does not have a case against the South African judges.
He stated there is no connection between the current case and the alleged case against the South African judges.
“If there is no case against the South African judges, there is no case,” he argued.
Advocate Nixon Marcus on behalf of Ombudsman argued that his client acted bona fide.
The case continues before Judge Herman Oosthuizen.
FRED GOEIEMAN
He charges that due to the minister and Ombudsman's malicious and undue lengthy delays, and unlawful failure to speedily serve the combined summons against the South African appeal judges Piet Streicher, Kenneth Mthiyane and Fritz Brand - appointed as Acting Judges of Appeal of Namibia's Supreme Court, grossly violated his constitutional right.
The attorney-general in September 2010, in response to the request of the Registrar of High Court to facilitate the service of summons on the said judges, said it could not be processed due to non-compliance with Rule 5 of the High of Court rules and in the absence of legislative framework.
Judge Elton Hoff on 18 June 2010 removed Teek's appeal from the roll pursuant to Rule 5.
“The defendants' unlawful actions, conduct and decisions were taken with the settled malicious intent to prevent me from prosecuting the action against me, and to be compensated by the said judges,” Teek argued.
He emphasised that the defendants' unlawful conduct is the material and direct cause of his decision to withdraw and abandon his civil action against the South African judges.
He said the legal consequence of their actions are that he was denied the due process of law, natural justice and due care, as well as fair, reasonable, adequate and speedy remedial actions pursuant to statutory and common law.
He claims he was denied economic advancement and happiness in violation of his rights and that this resulted in severe mental anguish. Coupled with the resultant financial loss, he justified the amount he cited.
The said judges heard the State's appeal against Teek's discharge by South African Judge Ronnie Bosielo in 2006 on child abduction, rape and other charges and referred the case for retrial.
The State claimed that Bosielo erred when he found that they did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Teek was guilty and also criticised the manner in which the police handled the investigation.
Teek alleges that he pleaded to the Ombudsman for remedial assistance but that this was to no avail and that the latter also flagrantly ignored requests to meet him.
When, on 10 June 2013 the Ombudsman did not reply to his request to attend to his complaint, he lodged a complaint against the Ombudsman before the Judicial Service Commission.
Senior Council of Johannesburg Bar, Advocate Micheal Kuber, appearing on behalf of the justice minister said Teek does not have a case against the South African judges.
He stated there is no connection between the current case and the alleged case against the South African judges.
“If there is no case against the South African judges, there is no case,” he argued.
Advocate Nixon Marcus on behalf of Ombudsman argued that his client acted bona fide.
The case continues before Judge Herman Oosthuizen.
FRED GOEIEMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article