Case Details
Cassation Case No.: 250036
Date: October 24, 2023 (October 13, 2016 E.C.)
Applicant: Ato Nigussie Demissie
Respondents:
- Hyundai Development Company – Gore Masha Tepi Asphalt Road Project
- Nib Insurance Company S.C. (Not summoned)
A decision by by the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench addresses a crucial question in labor law: How should compensation be calculated when an employee suffers a permanent injury on the job but isn’t deemed 100% disabled? This case, originating from a road construction project, clarifies the legal framework for permanent partial disability payments and the limits of the highest court’s review powers.
Background of the Case
The case involved Mr. Nigussie Demissie, who worked as a site foreman for Hyundai Development Company on the Gore Masha Tepi Asphalt Road Project. Tragically, while performing his duties, he was injured by a grader machine, suffering a fracture to his right hip bone.
Following the injury, Mr. Nigussie received medical treatment. Although his employer transferred him to a storekeeper position, he found he was unable to perform even this modified role due to ongoing pain and his injury. A medical board from St. Paul’s Hospital assessed his permanent impairment at 5% of his overall body function.
Citing relevant articles of the Labour Proclamation, Mr. Nigussie sued his employer and their insurer (Nib Insurance), arguing that his injury resulted in permanent disability. He sought termination of his contract and compensation totaling Br. 797,484.00, essentially arguing for compensation based on a calculation as if he were fully disabled.
Arguments and Lower Court Decisions
The dispute revolved around the calculation of compensation:
- Woreda (District) Court: Initially, the Woreda court sided with Mr. Nigussie, determining that because the injury was permanent, compensation should be calculated based on 100% disability, despite the 5% medical assessment. It awarded him Br. 454,422.00.
- Sheka Zone High Court: The High Court modified this decision. It ruled that since the permanent injury was medically assessed at 5%, the compensation should be calculated based on that 5% figure, not 100%. This significantly reduced the compensation amount.
- Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench: Mr. Nigussie appealed the High Court’s decision to the regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench. The regional Cassation Bench subsequently issued an order that effectively upheld the principle of calculating compensation based on the assessed 5% impairment, unfavorable to Mr. Nigussie.
The Cassation to the Federal Supreme Court
Dissatisfied with the regional courts’ rulings, Mr. Nigussie brought his case to the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench. He argued that the decisions of the regional High Court and the regional Cassation Bench contained fundamental errors of law that should be corrected by the highest court.
The Bench’s Decision
The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, after reviewing the case, rejected Mr. Nigussie’s application for review.
Reasoning Behind the Verdict
The Bench first explained its limited scope for reviewing decisions from regional supreme court Cassation Benchs. Under Ethiopian law (specifically Proclamation No. 1234/2013), the Federal Supreme Court can only review such cases if there is a fundamental error of law that:
- Contradicts constitutional provisions; or
- Contradicts a binding precedent set by the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench; or
- Involves a significant misinterpretation or misapplication of the law in a case of national public interest.
The Bench then examined Mr. Nigussie’s argument that the regional courts’ decisions (to calculate compensation based on 5% rather than 100%) constituted such a fundamental error.
The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench concluded that, based on the legal provisions allowing for review, the regional courts’ decisions in this specific case, while modifying the initial Woreda court ruling, did not meet the high threshold required for intervention by the Federal Supreme Court. The Court did not find that the decisions violated the constitution, contradicted its own prior binding rulings, or involved a nationally significant misinterpretation of the law.
Therefore, lacking the specific legal grounds required for cassation review in this instance, the Court dismissed the application.