Case Details
- Cassation Case No.: 245126
- Date: October 07, 2017 E.C. (ጥቅምት 07 ቀን 2017 ዓ.ም)
- Applicant: Ato Tesfaye Assefa
- Respondent: Ato Mersha Hailu
Legal Rule (Legal Interpretation)
The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench’s jurisdiction, as stipulated in Article 80(3)(a) of the FDRE Constitution and further detailed in Articles 2(4) and 10 of Federal Courts Establishment Proclamation No. 1234/2013, is limited to correcting fundamental errors of law in final decisions. The purpose of the cassation system is to ensure uniform interpretation of the law and predictability of decisions. The Cassation Bench explicitly states that it does not have the legal authority to re-examine factual disputes, review evidence, or assess the weight of evidence presented in lower courts. This principle is also supported by a binding legal interpretation given by the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench in Volume 9, Case No. 41526.
Application of the Rule in the Case
The case originated from a goods sales contract dispute. The applicant (seller) claimed the respondent (buyer) failed to pay 1,459,000.00 Birr for plastic preforms, after two checks bounced due to insufficient funds. The respondent argued that the checks were for guarantee, not payment, and that the applicant failed to deliver the full quantity of goods, thus not being entitled to the full payment.
The Federal High Court, after hearing evidence, concluded that the checks were indeed for guarantee, not payment, and that the applicant failed to deliver the disputed portion of the goods (valued at 362,670.00 Birr). It ruled that the respondent was not liable for this amount. The Federal Supreme Court’s Appeal Bench upheld this decision.
The applicant then filed a cassation appeal, arguing that the lower courts made fundamental errors in evaluating the evidence, particularly regarding the nature of the checks (payment vs. guarantee) and the delivery of goods. They also claimed that their counter-arguments regarding the respondent’s failure to notify defects within a year were ignored, and that interest and costs were wrongly denied.
The Cassation Bench examined the applicant’s grievances. It determined that the applicant’s complaints primarily revolved around the lower courts’ assessment of facts and evaluation of evidence (e.g., whether the checks were for payment or guarantee, whether the goods were delivered, whether there was a defect notification). The Cassation Bench reiterated its limited jurisdiction, stating that it does not have the power to re-evaluate factual findings or re-weigh evidence. Since the applicant’s appeal focused on these factual and evidentiary matters, which fall outside the Cassation Bench’s mandate to correct fundamental errors of law, the appeal was deemed inadmissible for review.
Decision
The Cassation Bench upheld the order of the Federal Supreme Court’s Appeal Bench (Case No. 236488, dated March 13, 2015 E.C.) which had affirmed the Federal High Court’s decision. The Cassation Bench found no fundamental error of law in the lower courts’ decisions regarding the factual and evidentiary findings. Each party is to bear their own costs for the cassation proceedings.