Ruling in Teek lawsuit sees another delay

09 Mar 2018 18:40pm
WINDHOEK, 09 MAR (NAMPA) – A ruling in a civil legal battle in which former Judge of Appeal, Pio Teek is suing the government for over N.dollars 6 million, on Friday saw another delay.
Initially, the ruling in the matter was set to be made public on 02 March this year, but on that day, High Court Judge Herman Oosthuizen was unable to finish compiling the verdict on time due to other official duties.
He then remanded the case to 09 March for the handing down of the ruling.
The ruling will now be made known on Tuesday, said Judge Oosthuizen in court on Friday afternoon as he postponed the case, because he once again could not finish writing the ruling.
Teek is suing the government, Minister of Justice and Ombudsman for violating his rights to a fair trial, defamation and a breach of constitutional duty.
He claimed that both the justice minister and ombudsman failed to speedily serve summons on South African appeal judges Piet Streicher, Kenneth Mthiyane and Fritz Brand, who were appointed as acting judges of appeal by Namibia’s Supreme Court at the time. Teek is suing the government for about N.dollars 6.9 million in damages.
He was arrested in 2005 on charges of abducting two underage girls, giving them alcohol, fondling them and showing them pornographic material at his farm in the Brakwater area outside Windhoek.
The High Court found him not guilty the following year.
The State then successfully appealed against the High Court judgement in the Supreme Court on 07 December 2016, and the Supreme Court reversed High Court Judge Ronnie Bosielo’s ruling, which had found Teek not guilty.
A full bench of South African appeal judges found there was enough evidence for a re-trial, which is now pending before the High Court.
Teek then instituted the civil claim for damages on 09 October 2017.
Teek had emphasised that the defendants’ unlawful conduct was the material and direct cause of his decision to withdraw and abandon his civil action against the South African judges.
He said the legal consequences of their actions were that he was denied due process, natural justice and due care, as well as fair, reasonable, adequate and speedy remedial actions pursuant to statutory and common law.
Teek also claimed that he was denied economic advancement and happiness, and this resulted in severe mental anguish.
The retired judge defended himself in court, while Nixon Marcus represented the government.