Case Details
- Cassation Case No.: 245259
- Date: February 6, 2017 E.C. (6/2/2017)
- Applicant: Temesgen Dingago and Family PLC
- Respondent: Senait Eshetu, wife of Ato Eshetu Solomon Woldeyes, and guardian of minors Naol Solomon and Maranata Solomon
Legal Rule (Legal Interpretation)
The central legal issue revolves around the determination of compensation for loss of support, specifically the deceased’s monthly income, under Article 2095 of the Civil Code. The court’s interpretation focuses on whether the previous determination of the deceased’s monthly salary of 2,500 Birr in a separate labor law case (Case No. 32183) should be binding for the calculation of compensation for the children’s maintenance, especially when there’s an argument that the deceased had additional income from other activities (e.g., driving a car for Hararge Public Transport Association). The core of the legal rule here is about the proper assessment of the deceased’s actual earning capacity and its impact on the compensation amount for dependents.
Application of the Rule in the Case
The case began at the Oromia Regional Supreme Court, Eastern Oromia Permanent Bench. The respondent (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for the death of her husband, Solomon Woldeyes, who died in a car accident involving the applicant’s (defendant’s) vehicle. She claimed her husband’s monthly salary was 20,000 Birr and sought compensation for herself and her children until they reached 60 years of age, plus funeral and 40-day memorial expenses, and attorney fees.
The applicant argued that there was no proof of a 20,000 Birr salary or that the deceased would have lived until 60. They also claimed that compensation should only be for maintenance if the respondent could not work, and that the vehicle was insured.
The Oromia Regional Supreme Court confirmed the accident and death but rejected the respondent’s claim for her own maintenance, finding no proof she couldn’t support herself. For the children, it estimated 2,500 Birr per child per month until they reached 18, plus 70,000 Birr for funeral expenses, totaling 852,000 Birr, with 15% attorney fees. Lucy Insurance was ordered to pay 40,000 Birr of this. The Federal Supreme Court’s Appeal Bench upheld this decision.
The Cassation Bench took up the case to clarify whether the deceased’s monthly salary of 2,500 Birr, as determined in Labor Case No. 32183, should be the sole basis for calculating the children’s maintenance, especially given the respondent’s claim of additional income.
The Cassation Bench found that while the deceased’s salary was 2,500 Birr in the labor case, the respondent presented arguments (which the applicant did not refute) that the deceased earned 2,500 Birr per trip for 8 trips a month (totaling 20,000 Birr monthly) from Hararge Public Transport Association for driving between Jijiga and Addis Ababa. The court reasoned that even if the base salary was 2,500 Birr, considering the proven additional income, it could not conclude that the deceased was incapable of paying 2,500 Birr per month for each of his two children. Therefore, the lower courts’ decision to award 2,500 Birr per child per month was not a fundamental error of law.
Decision
The Cassation Bench upheld the decision of the Oromia Regional Supreme Court (Case No. 370401, dated December 15, 2015 E.C.) and the Federal Supreme Court’s Appeal Bench (Case No. 240952, dated March 8, 2015 E.C.), finding no fundamental error of law. The injunction issued on July 19, 2015 E.C., was lifted. Each party is to bear their own costs for the cassation proceedings.