The House of Federation, during its session on June 25, 2015, issued a final decision regarding the constitutional rights of rural landholders and the applicability of period of limitation (statute of limitations) to land use rights. The official communication of this decision was subsequently distributed to the Federal Supreme Court and the Oromia National Regional State Supreme Court on July 3, 2015.
Background and Judicial History
The case originated in the Meta Robi Wereda Court of the West Shoa Zone, Oromia Regional State. The applicant, W/ro Mamite Sebs, and her late husband had possessed and utilized the agricultural land in question since 1979. Following her husband’s death, the applicant entered into a sharecropping arrangement with her son, allowing him to farm the land in exchange for a portion of the harvest.
Upon the son’s death, his widow, W/ro Mulu Gurme, took possession of the land. She argued that because she had occupied and used the land for twelve years, the applicant’s right to reclaim the property was barred by a twelve-year statute of limitations (period of limitation). This argument was sustained by both the Oromia Regional State Supreme Court Cassation Division and the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division, which ruled in favor of the respondent based on the duration of her possession.
Constitutional Inquiry and Recommendations
The Constitutional Inquiry Commission reviewed the petition and identified several critical constitutional issues. The Commission established that the applicant had not voluntarily relinquished her land rights but had instead transferred the use of the land to her son under a contractual farming arrangement.
Reference was made to the Oromia Rural Land Administration and Use Proclamation No. 130/2006, Article 6(16), which stipulates that a farmer only loses land use rights if they fail to use the land for two consecutive years without sufficient cause or if they explicitly waive their rights in writing. The Commission concluded that the courts’ application of a twelve-year limitation period was an error that effectively resulted in the unconstitutional eviction of a farmer from their legitimate holding.
Final Decision of the House of Federation
The House of Federation unanimously adopted the recommendations of the Commission, citing specific constitutional mandates:
- Right to Land (Article 40, Sub-Article 4): Every Ethiopian farmer has the right to obtain land without payment and the right not to be displaced from their possession.
- Equal Rights for Women (Article 35, Sub-Article 7): Women have equal rights with men regarding the use, transfer, administration, and control of land.
- Supremacy of the Constitution (Article 9, Sub-Article 1): The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law, customary practice, or decision of an organ of state or a public official which contravenes it shall be of no effect.
The House of Federation determined that the prior rulings by the regional and federal cassation divisions violated the applicant’s constitutional protections as a farmer and a woman. Consequently, those judicial decisions were overturned. The Council ordered the restoration of W/ro Mamite Sebs’ constitutional landholding and usage rights, directing all relevant authorities to implement the ruling accordingly.