factor which makes it probable that a judgment sounding in money will be effective against the defendant, the courts of the state have no jurisdiction to entertain an action against him in which such a judgment is claimed. There are four factors, any one of which might be thought to be sufficient to make a judgment sounding in money effective against a defendant who is not physically present within the state at the time of the commencement of the action. These are: (a) the domicile of the defendant within the (b) the residence of the defendant within the state; (c) the fact that the defendant is a national of the state; and (d) the presence of property of the defendant within the state’ [24] In Case No: I 2181/2010 against the three acting foreign Justices, the summons was issued by the Registrar, but was never served before its withdrawal. According to the plaintiff the summons were never served due to the conspiratorial inaction of the defendants in the present, Case No: I 3304/2015. The latter (present case before me) relies on the unserved summons in Case No: I 2181/2010 for damages. The particulars of claim in Case No: I 2181/2010 fail to plead the jurisdiction of this Court properly and I find that the Namibian High Court could not assume jurisdiction in the case of the three foreign Acting Judges. Not one of the four factors in the preceding paragraph was properly pleaded. It was necessary for plaintiff to allege and disclose facts in his particulars against the three foreign Justices to show that the Namibian High Court would have had effective jurisdiction. In other words: the summons and particulars of claim against the three foreign Justices were bad in law. [25] The objection by the plaintiff that this court was not entitled to raise jurisdiction mero motu, is not sound. A court hearing a matter is precluded from raising jurisdiction after litis contestation. I am not precluded from considering jurisdiction as a definitive important question in the withdrawn action against the three acting foreign Justices. No relief sounding in money could be claimed with the summons and particulars of claim in Case No: I 2181/2010. [26] Despite plaintiff's initial stance in the current case against the two defendants, he has changed his position again during the latter part of the case, asserting that if
factor which makes it probable that a judgment sounding in money will be effective against the defendant, the courts of the state have no jurisdiction to entertain an action against him in which such a judgment is claimed. There are four factors, any one of which might be thought to be sufficient to make a judgment sounding in money effective against a defendant who is not physically present within the state at the time of the commencement of the action. These are: (a) the domicile of the defendant within the (b) the residence of the defendant within the state; (c) the fact that the defendant is a national of the state; and (d) the presence of property of the defendant within the state’ [24] In Case No: I 2181/2010 against the three acting foreign Justices, the summons was issued by the Registrar, but was never served before its withdrawal. According to the plaintiff the summons were never served due to the conspiratorial inaction of the defendants in the present, Case No: I 3304/2015. The latter (present case before me) relies on the unserved summons in Case No: I 2181/2010 for damages. The particulars of claim in Case No: I 2181/2010 fail to plead the jurisdiction of this Court properly and I find that the Namibian High Court could not assume jurisdiction in the case of the three foreign Acting Judges. Not one of the four factors in the preceding paragraph was properly pleaded. It was necessary for plaintiff to allege and disclose facts in his particulars against the three foreign Justices to show that the Namibian High Court would have had effective jurisdiction. In other words: the summons and particulars of claim against the three foreign Justices were bad in law. [25] The objection by the plaintiff that this court was not entitled to raise jurisdiction mero motu, is not sound. A court hearing a matter is precluded from raising jurisdiction after litis contestation. I am not precluded from considering jurisdiction as a definitive important question in the withdrawn action against the three acting foreign Justices. No relief sounding in money could be claimed with the summons and particulars of claim in Case No: I 2181/2010. [26] Despite plaintiff's initial stance in the current case against the two defendants, he has changed his position again during the latter part of the case, asserting that if
Teek%20v%20The%20Minister%20of%20Justice%20(I%203304-2015)%20[2018]%20NAHCMD%2052%20(13%20March%202018).docx