Case I
Regarding Marital Reconciliation and the Presumption of Marriage involves Cassation File Number 213837, dated April 26, 2014 E.C., with Applicant Mr. Zemere Jemaneh and Respondent Mrs. Almaz Asfaw before judges Teferi Gebru (Dr.), Kenea Kitata, Feyissa Worku, Dejene Ayansa, and Birknesh Esubalew. In the summary of the case, the parties, originally married in 1965 E.C., were divorced by a court in 2001 E.C., but subsequently, while property division was pending, they entered a reconciliation agreement in 2004 E.C. to continue their marital life and merge their assets. When a second divorce was sought, the Applicant argued that no new legal marriage had been performed according to the formalities of the Revised Family Code, and thus no marriage existed to be dissolved.
Regarding the legal rule and interpretation of law, the court held that where former spouses reconcile and live together in a manner that manifests a marital state after a divorce decree, the law presumes the existence of a marriage without requiring a new formal ceremony, provided the intention to live as husband and wife is established. In its reasoning, the Court reasoned that the reconciliation agreement aimed to restore the previous relationship and settle the pending property dispute, while evidence from witnesses and media coverage confirmed they resumed cohabitation as husband and wife. In line with previous binding cassation precedents like File Number 23021, physical cohabitation post-divorce creates a legal presumption of marriage. Consequently, the ruling affirmed the decision of the Federal Supreme Court Appeals Division; the marriage was deemed to have existed and was dissolved as of 2012 E.C.
Case II
concerning Possessory Actions versus Petitory Actions in Land Disputes involves Cassation File Number 215443, dated February 29, 2014 E.C., with Applicant Mr. Mulugeta Feyissa Gudeta and Respondent Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP) before judges Etmet Assefa, Tsehay Menker, Nureudin Kedir, Meliku Kassaye, and Estibele Andualem. In the summary of the case, EEP claimed a lease title to a plot of land and sued the Applicant for interference and disturbance of possession, seeking the demolition of structures built by the Applicant. However, the Applicant proved that his father and then he himself had maintained actual, long-term physical possession of the land since 1996 E.C., long before EEP obtained its lease title.
Regarding the legal rule and interpretation of law, pursuant to Civil Code Articles 1140 and 1149, a suit for the removal of interference (a possessory action) requires the claimant to prove they were in actual, peaceful possession and control of the property prior to the interference. A party with a title but no actual possession must file a petitory action to claim the property rather than a possessory one. In its reasoning, the Court found that although EEP held a lease certificate, it never had physical possession or control of the land. Since the Applicant was the one in actual control, he could not be sued for interfering with a possession that the Respondent never physically held. As for the ruling, the decisions of the Oromia Supreme Court and Federal Supreme Court Appeals Division were reversed, and the High Court’s dismissal of EEP’s claim was reinstated.
Case III
Regarding the Denial of Filiation and Evidence Standards involves Cassation File Number 229983, dated January 24, 2015 E.C., with Applicant Mrs. Martha Alebachew and Respondent Mrs. Lia Negash before judges Teferi Gebru (Dr.), Endashaw Adane, Teshome Shiferaw, Melaku Kassaye, and Netsanet Tegegne. In the summary of the case, the Applicant sought to deny the filiation or child-parent relationship of the Respondent to the deceased, who was the Applicant’s aunt, claiming that the deceased had her uterus surgically removed in 1976 E.C. and therefore could not have given birth to the Respondent in 1987 E.C.
Regarding the legal rule and interpretation of law, under the Revised Family Code Articles 154-157, filiation is proved by birth certificates or the possession of status, which is defined as being treated as a child. Once status is established, it can only be rebutted by proving the absolute physical impossibility of parentage through timely and conclusive evidence. In its reasoning, the court noted the Respondent produced a baptismal certificate and witness testimony confirming her status as the daughter. The Applicant failed to produce medical records of the alleged surgery during the trial, and her late request to submit newly found evidence at the appellate level was rejected due to strict procedural rules found in Articles 256 and 345 of the Civil Procedure Code. Consequently, the ruling affirmed the lower court decisions confirming the Respondent’s status as the daughter.
Case IV
concerning Labor Law and the Calculation of the Limitation Period involves Cassation File Number 234925, dated January 22, 2015 E.C., with Applicant Nass Garment P.L.C. and Respondent Mr. Temesgen Ketsela before judges Birhanu Amenew, Bekwet Belay, Kenea Kitata, Lelise Desalegn, and Nureudin Kedir. In the summary of the case, an employee sued for unlawful termination and associated payments. The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the claim was barred by the six-month statute of limitations under Proclamation 1156/2011, asserting that the five days of the month of Pagumen should be counted, thereby pushing the claim past the six-month deadline.
Regarding the legal rule and interpretation of law, when a limitation period is defined in months rather than days, the calculation follows the Gregorian-style month-to-month transition; the month of Pagumen is not counted as an independent 13th month or as extra days to be added to the six-month total. In its reasoning, referring to Civil Code Article 1860(3), the Court held that for legal time-counting purposes in months, Pagumen is ignored and counting should be based on the calendar month sequence. Since the contract ended on Nehasse 26 and the claim was filed on Yekatit 25, it fell precisely within the six-month window. Therefore, the ruling affirmed the lower court’s decision that the claim was not barred by limitation.
Case V
Regarding the Settlement of Succession Disputes involves Cassation File Number 255263, adjudicated via a settlement order in 2016 E.C., with Applicant Heirs of Mrs. Almaz Abebe (Mr. Samson Girma et al.) and Respondent Mrs. Frehiwot Abebe before judges Etmet Assefa, Dejene Ayansa, Nureudin Kedir, Melaku Kassaye, and Habtamu Erqiyihun. In the summary of the case, the dispute involved the verification of assets belonging to a deceased’s estate, and during the cassation process, the parties informed the Court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement.
Regarding the legal rule and interpretation of law, pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Article 277, parties to a dispute may conclude their case through a compromise or reconciliation agreement, which the Court shall record as a judgment provided it does not contravene law or public morality. In its reasoning, the Court examined the written reconciliation agreement dated February 09, 2016 E.C. and confirmed with the parties present that they had signed it voluntarily. The Court found the agreement to be legally and morally sound. For the ruling, the reconciliation agreement was registered, and the case was closed.
Case VI
Regarding Possessory Protection and Land Disturbance involves Cassation File Number 255284, dated Hamle 26, 2016 E.C., with Applicants W/ro Aberash Ayano Baykedagn and W/ro Alemitu Tolosa Furi and Respondent Bole Bulbula Finote Hiwot Kidist Mariam Church before judges Birhanu Amenew, Bekwet Belay, Kenea Kitata, Birhanu Mengistu, and Martha Teka. In the summary of the case, the Applicants sought a court order for the removal of interference, alleging the Respondent had disturbed their peaceful possession of approximately 37,500 square meters of land by constructing a fence and placing a cross on a portion of the property. The Respondent argued it had occupied the land since 2005 E.C. through an agreement with the administration. While the First Instance Court ruled in favor of the Applicants, the High Court reversed this, leading to the current cassation petition.
Regarding the legal rule and interpretation of law, under Civil Code Articles 1140 and 1149, a possessory action for the removal of interference requires the court to verify that the claimant was in actual, peaceful possession at the time of the disturbance and that the defendant’s actions were unlawful. Furthermore, courts have a duty to consolidate related cases or consider previous final judgments between the same parties regarding the same subject matter to prevent contradictory rulings. In its reasoning, the Cassation Division found that the lower courts failed to determine if the disputed land was identical to land involved in previous litigations such as File Numbers 286002 and 20379. Additionally, the High Court erred by not using independent experts to verify physical boundaries and by ignoring the procedural necessity of consolidating related files. For the ruling, the decisions of the Federal High Court and Federal Supreme Court Appeals Division are reversed, and the case is remanded to the Federal High Court for a thorough factual and legal inquiry.
Case VII
concerning the Employer’s Duty to Produce Evidence in Labor Disputes involves Cassation File Number 256329/256327, dated Hamle 22, 2016 E.C., with Applicant Ethiopian Airlines and Respondent Mr. Tilahun Asfaw before judges Teferi Gebru (Dr.), Endashaw Adane, Teshome Shiferaw, Wazimo Wasira, and Senayt Adenew. In the summary of the case, an employee (the Respondent) was terminated for allegedly stealing $7,000 USD from a passenger, an act the Applicant claimed was captured on CCTV and corroborated by witness statements. The employee sued for reinstatement and back-pay. The Applicant requested the court to order the production of the victim’s police statement to prove the misconduct.
Regarding the legal rule and interpretation of law, pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Article 145(1), courts are legally obligated to order the production of documents or records held by third parties, including police records, if such evidence is relevant and necessary to resolve the material issues of a case. In its reasoning, the Court determined the lower courts committed a fundamental error of law by rendering a judgment without admitting or ordering the production of the police statement requested by the employer. This omission prevented a fair adjudication of whether the termination was lawful under the Labor Proclamation. Consequently, the ruling reversed the lower court decisions and remanded the case to the Federal First Instance Court to admit the requested evidence and conduct a fresh trial.