Nearly two years after an exception against Teek's claim against Namibia's President, government, minister of justice and attorney general was upheld in the High Court, that ruling has now been overturned by three judges of the Supreme Court.
The three judges - Acting Judges of Appeal Sandile Ngcobo, Vernanda Ziyambi and Paddington Garwe - set aside the ruling in which an exception against Teek's claim was upheld, and referred the case back to the High Court with an order that the matter should be considered afresh in that court.
Teek lodged a claim against the four defendants, and also against the three South African judges who dealt with an appeal in a criminal case in which he was the accused, in April 2010.
He claimed that the three judges, who served as acting judges of appeal in Namibia's Supreme Court, violated his rights to a fair trial and made defamatory remarks about him in an appeal judgement in which the judges set aside his initial acquittal on six criminal charges that he was facing in a trial in the High Court.
Teek claimed he had suffered financial losses amounting to N$6,8 million as a result of his retirement from judicial office in October 2005 - about eight and a half months after he had been arrested and charged on child abduction, rape and other charges in early 2005.
Teek went on trial in the High Court in Windhoek in April 2006. By the end of July 2006, after the prosecution had closed its case, he was discharged on all counts. However, the State appealed against his acquittal at that stage of the trial, and in late April 2009 the three appeal judges set aside his discharge on six of the eight counts he had been facing.
His trial had to continue in the High Court after that ruling. Teek was eventually again found not guilty on the remaining six charges in December 2010. After Teek withdrew his claim against the three appeal judges in May 2010, the President, government, Minister of Justice and Attorney General were left as the defendants in the case.
Teek sued them for N$6,8 million, plus interest at a rate of 20% a year, and in the alternative also asked the High Court to order the defendants to provide him with the needed logistical and financial assistance that would enable him to sue three South African judges and to enforce a Namibian judgement against them in South Africa.
In his claim against the remaining defendants Teek is alleging that the proceedings in the Supreme Court were irregular because the court's actions were “incompetent, imprudent and corrupt” and motivated by malicious bias and “partiality towards and collusion with the State”, with all of that aimed at ensuring that he would be convicted on the charges he had been facing.
In the judgement in which the defendants' exception against Teek's claim was upheld, Acting Judge Nicholas Ndou found that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the former judge's claim. Acting Judge Ndou reasoned that the indirect result of the case which Teek lodged against the four defendants was that the High Court would have to review the thought process of a judgement of the Supreme Court, whereas an order of the Supreme Court cannot be appealed against or taken on review and decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all other courts of Namibia and all persons in Namibia.
Acting Judge of Appeal Ngcobo reasoned in the appeal judgement delivered yesterday that while no other court has the constitutional authority to set aside decisions of the Supreme Court, neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court Act preclude the High Court from considering a claim arising from findings or statements made by the Supreme Court. He also found that Teek is not trying to appeal against the Supreme Court's judgement in his case or to have it reviewed, but is only concerned with the conduct of the appeal judges and statements that were made in their judgement.
The High Court is a competent court to deal with the civil dispute that was lodged by Teek, Judge Ngcobo concluded.