Introduction: The Foundation of Judicial Authority
Judicial jurisdiction is a fundamental concept in any legal system, defining the scope of a court’s authority to hear and decide cases. It ensures that courts operate within their designated powers, upholding the rule of law and preventing arbitrary exercise of judicial authority. Jurisdiction can be broadly categorized into subject-matter jurisdiction (competence ratione materiae) and territorial jurisdiction (competence ratione loci). Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to hear a particular type of case, while territorial jurisdiction refers to its power over cases arising within a specific geographical area. This chapter delves into various aspects of judicial jurisdiction in Ethiopia, drawing insights from decisions of the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench.
Addis Ababa Courts and Jurisdiction
Annulment of Heirship or Will Certificates (Cassation File No. 212859)
Addis Ababa courts, despite having accepted and decided petitions for the annulment of heirship or will certificates outside their jurisdiction, do not have the power to hear and decide objections filed under Civil Procedure Code Article 358, arguing that the annulment decision was beyond their jurisdiction.
Courts cannot rectify errors they have committed by repeating another error. It is an error for courts to accept and adjudicate cases outside their jurisdiction. However, a decision rendered outside their jurisdiction should be rectified through a petition filed with a court that has the proper jurisdiction, rather than allowing the same courts to accept and decide on matters they still lack jurisdiction over, as this would be repeating an error with another error, which is not a proper interpretation.
- Relevant Laws/Cases: Addis Ababa City Administration Charter Proclamation No. 361/95 and its amendment Proclamation No. 408/96, Article 2(1); Civil Code Article 998(1); Civil Procedure Code Article 358; 359(1); Cassation File No. 171061.
Objection to Heirship Certificate (Cassation File No. 161650, Volume 24)
If an objection filed concerning an heirship certificate is found to have no significance beyond verifying the authenticity and legality of the certificate, the court that issued the certificate has the jurisdiction to accept and decide the petition for its annulment.
Article 41(1)(h) of Proclamation No. 361/1995, as amended by Article 2(1) of Proclamation No. 408/1996, stipulates that Addis Ababa City Courts have jurisdiction over petitions for heirship certificates. On the other hand, when an objection to annul a certificate is filed, if the content of the legal and factual dispute arising from the petition is found to have no significance beyond the heirship certificate itself, the court that issued the certificate must entertain the petition for its annulment. This Cassation Bench, in Cassation File No. 105211, provided a binding legal interpretation under Article 2(1) of Proclamation No. 454/97, binding on any court at any level. According to this binding legal interpretation, to determine subject-matter jurisdiction, it is necessary to examine the content of the cause of action. If it is confirmed that despite the existence of other dissimilar circumstances outside its content, the cases fall under the same subject-matter jurisdiction, the court that issued the certificate must entertain the petition for its annulment. However, if the petition for annulment of the certificate goes beyond the annulment of the certificate and affects the outcome of other legal rights, concerns a matter not granted to the court that issued the certificate, and involves factual and legal disputes that affect other laws, then the court that issued the certificate should not hear the case, as it would fall outside its jurisdiction. This is what we understand from the content and spirit of the decision.
Principal and Ancillary Jurisdiction (Cassation File No. 204258)
As stipulated in Civil Procedure Code Article 17(2), when different reliefs are sought in one lawsuit, the court that has jurisdiction to hear the principal or higher relief is the competent court.
Therefore, when a lawsuit is filed seeking to declare an administrative body’s closure of a business establishment unlawful and to claim damages for the resulting harm, the principal relief is to determine whether the closure was in accordance with the law, as the claim for damages is ancillary and follows this determination. Therefore, since the Addis Ababa City Court has jurisdiction to hear the principal relief, it is the city administration court that should hear and decide the ancillary claim for damages together. The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench also gave a similar legal interpretation in Cassation File No. 96216, Volume 16.
- Relevant Laws/Cases: Civil Procedure Code Article 17(2); Cassation File No. 96216, Volume 16.
Sharia Courts and Jurisdiction
Consent to Adjudicate (Cassation File No. 202693)
A petition filed with a Sharia court to clarify inherited property and determine inheritance shares fundamentally involves determining claimants or heirs, searching for a will if one exists, determining beneficiaries according to the will, administering the inheritance, collecting inherited money and paying debts, clarifying and tracing the deceased’s property, paying testamentary gifts, and similar activities. Ultimately, it involves issuing an heirship certificate that states who the deceased’s heir is or even specifies their share of the inheritance. In principle, such a petition is filed by one party and is non-contentious from a legal perspective. Therefore, even if a claiming heir does not consent to adjudication, the Sharia court has the power to issue an heirship certificate based on the petition.
- Relevant Laws/Cases: Proclamation No. 188/92, Article 4(2); Cassation File No. 18576.
Petition After Consent to Another Court (Cassation File No. 175719)
Litigants who have given their consent and argued for divorce to be decided by a Sharia court cannot later file a petition to have their dispute transferred to the Federal First Instance Court for a divorce decision, nor can they file a petition for property division, a consequence of divorce, with the Federal First Instance Court after the Sharia court has rendered a divorce decision.
If litigants have clearly expressed their consent to be adjudicated by Federal Sharia Courts in accordance with the proclamation and have proceeded with the litigation, the Federal Sharia Courts, not the Federal ordinary courts, have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and render a legal decision on the matter.
Article 4(1)(a) of Proclamation No. 188/1992, which was enacted to strengthen the position of Federal Sharia Courts, stipulates that if one of the litigants files a petition to be adjudicated by a Sharia court in any matter related to marriage, divorce, alimony, guardianship of minors, and family relations, they are considered to have clearly expressed their consent.
Furthermore, if the litigant appears and confirms their consent to be adjudicated by a Sharia court according to the form related to the proclamation, it confirms their clear expression of consent, meaning the Sharia court to which the case is presented will have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the adjudication requested by the litigants.
- Relevant Laws/Cases: Proclamation No. 188/1992, Article 4(1)(a).
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Competence Ratione Materiae)
Check as an Ordinary Document (Cassation File No. 104511, Volume 17)
When a claim for payment falls under the jurisdiction of a regional court, the mere submission of a check as an ordinary document with the lawsuit does not make the case a federal matter. This emphasizes that the nature of the claim, not merely the type of evidence, determines subject-matter jurisdiction.
Legality of Detention (Cassation File No. 230167)
According to Federal Courts Proclamation No. 1234/2013, the Federal First Instance Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction to hear petitions filed to verify the legality of detention.
Territorial Jurisdiction (Competence Ratione Loci)
Convenience (Cassation File No. 109383, Volume 17)
Territorial jurisdiction primarily considers the place where the cause of action arose, the convenience for the litigants, and similar circumstances. Subject-matter jurisdiction, however, considers the content of the cause of action, the weight and extent of the rights and interests of the litigants, the complexity of the case, and similar points. Therefore, in the system of case management, greater emphasis is given to subject-matter jurisdiction. Articles 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, when read together, also indicate that the law places greater emphasis on subject-matter jurisdiction than on territorial jurisdiction.
- Relevant Laws/Cases: Civil Procedure Code Articles 9, 10.
Region Without Federal High Court (Cassation File No. 205206)
Even if a Federal High Court is not established in a region, federal cases falling under the territorial jurisdiction of that region should be filed with the regional Supreme Court, not the Federal High Court. This reflects the delegated powers of regional courts to handle federal matters in areas where federal courts are not present.
- Relevant Laws/Cases: Federal High Court Establishment Proclamation No. 322/1995; Federal Courts Proclamation No. 25/1988.
Damages (Cassation File No. 48018, Volume 10)
In principle, a lawsuit filed to claim damages for harm caused to persons or movable property must be filed with the court having subject-matter jurisdiction in the place where the harm occurred, as stipulated in Civil Procedure Code Article 27, Sub-article 1. This is because it is easier to obtain and present evidence related to the harm and its associated issues in the area where the harm occurred. However, Civil Procedure Code Article 27, Sub-article 1, allows for a lawsuit to claim damages for harm caused to persons or movable property to be filed with the court having jurisdiction in the defendant’s place of residence, provided it does not hinder the proper fulfillment of the law’s objective as stated above.
- Relevant Laws/Cases: Civil Procedure Code Article 27(1).
Inheritance (Cassation File No. 34076, Volume 7)
Regarding territorial jurisdiction in inheritance matters, Article 23 of the Civil Procedure Code, found in Book One, Chapter 3 of the Procedural Law, determines the place where a lawsuit arising from inheritance should be heard. It indicates that the lawsuit must be filed with the court in the place where the distribution of the inheritance began. If the law is this clear, it does not take into account the issue of inherited properties being located in different places.
- Relevant Laws/Cases: Civil Procedure Code Article 23.
Marriage (Cassation File No. 209143)
If a husband and wife, married under regional family law and residing in that region, mutually agree to change their residence to another region or administration and begin living there, and subsequently one of the spouses returns to their former place of residence, the court in the place where they mutually changed their residence has territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the divorce petition.
Although the power to interpret law follows the power to legislate, the power to interpret laws enacted by the House of Peoples’ Representatives is not exclusively limited to Federal Courts, nor is the power to adjudicate laws enacted by Regional Councils exclusively limited to Regional Courts.
The Amhara National Regional State Family Law was enacted by the Regional Council. While the Amhara Regional Courts have the power to interpret this law, if a husband and wife, in their freedom to determine their residence under Article 32(1) of the Constitution and Article 65 of the Regional Family Law Proclamation No. 79/1995, establish their residence in Addis Ababa City, there is no legal reason to argue that the case must be heard by a competent Amhara Regional Court simply because the relevant law for the dispute is the Amhara National Regional State Family Law. This highlights the principle that jurisdiction can be influenced by the parties’ choice of domicile, even when the substantive law is regional.
- Relevant Laws/Cases: FDRE Constitution Article 32(1); Amhara Region Amended Family Law Proclamation No. 79/1995, Article 65.
Conclusion: Navigating the Jurisdictional Landscape
Judicial jurisdiction is a multifaceted concept that dictates the boundaries of a court’s authority. The decisions of the Ethiopian Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench provide crucial insights into how subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction are interpreted and applied in practice. These interpretations emphasize the importance of examining the nature of the claim, the convenience for litigants, and the specific provisions of both federal and regional laws. The complexities arising from delegated powers, the interplay between different types of courts (e.g., Sharia and ordinary courts), and the impact of party consent underscore the dynamic nature of jurisdictional challenges. A clear and consistent understanding of these principles is essential for ensuring that cases are heard by the appropriate judicial forum, thereby upholding due process and facilitating the efficient administration of justice in Ethiopia.